Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

BILL PRESENTED

HOSPITAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL

Mr. Secretary Campbell, supported by Mr. Edward M. Taylor, presented a Bill to provide for the constitution of a Scottish Hospital Trust; to make provision for the transfer of endowments to that Trust and for the distribution of the income of those endowments; to extend the powers of investment of the Scottish Hospital Endowments Research Trust; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 27th October and to be printed [Bill 19].

MENAI STRAITS, BRITANNIA BRIDGE

11.5 a.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

Mr. Speaker: May I say at the beginning that I have set down certain times on the Order Paper. These times must be adhered to. A debate must end at latest at the time I have set down on the Order Paper. This is always to preserve the rights of Members with later Adjournment topics.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The Britannia tubular railbridge spans the Menai Straits between Caernarvonshire and Anglesey and it is one of our country's historic bridges, designed by an engineer of genius—Robert Stephenson. It is one of the famous pair of bridges which links Anglesey with the mainland. The other is Telford's Suspension Bridge

which was begun in 1818, a quarter of a century before work commenced on the Britannia Bridge. For well over a century these two bridges have been the arteries into Anglesey, carrying people and goods in stage coaches, cars and trains up until recently without interruption.
The proposal for the rail bridge came before the House in 1844. The constructon of the bride was a massive and unique undertaking for that time. The floating and the raising of the great Britannia tubes caused Stephenson a good deal of worry. He said later:
It was a most anxious and harassing time with me. Often at night I would lie tossing about seeking sleep in vain. The tubes filled my head. I went to bed with them and got up with them. In the grey of the morning when I looked across the square it seemed an immense distance across to the houses on the opposite side. It was nearly the same length as the span of my tubular bridge!
On 5th March, 1850 Stephenson placed the last rivet in the last whole and passed through the finished bridge accompanied by three trainloads of about 1,000 people.
Until the Niagara Railway Suspension Bridge was built five years later, the Britannia Bridge remained the longest span in the world.
It is this famous and historic bridge which was severely damaged by fire on the night of 23rd/24th May last. The people of Anglesey were shocked and stunned by the news, and the sense of shock remains. Our dependence on the bridge was brought home to us in a very real way. The port of Holyhead and the livelihood of its workers depend on this rail link.
The Government of the day were not slow to act, and I should like to pay tribute to the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and my right hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) and for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) for the prompt action they took. My right hon. Friends, who were then the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister of Transport, came to see the damage for themselves on 25th May. They were accompanied by Sir Henry Johnson, the Chairman of British Railways Board, and his senior officials.
It was not possible for engineers to assess the damage immediately, but they


reported on 5th June, and on the same day British Railways issued a statement. I propose to read this in full because it is a very important statement giving a clear undertaking to restore the rail link.
This is the statement:
As a result of the provisional engineering assessments made during thes last 10 days the Railways Board have now informed the Minister of Transport that the Britannia Bridge over the Menai Straits may well take up to one year to reconstruct at a cost of up to £2 million. The Board intend to go ahead with the reconstruction as a matter of urgency subject to a more detailed engineering assessment.
Constant readings are being taken to record any change in the movement of the bridge, but while immediate repairs are being made to maintain stability, British Railways have advised the appropriate authorities that vessels should not pass under the bridge until further notice. Although the risk of collapse is considered remote, stability may be affected by extremes of temperature or extremely high winds.
When restored, the bridge will be re-opened with a single line only, but additional signalling will enable the traffic requirements to be adequately met. In the meantime, passenger services on the Holyhead—Dunlaoghaire route will continue to operate from Heysham, with connecting boat train services. Car ferry services from Holyhead are not affected and will run as advertised. Detailed provision to handle all freight services, including containers, is still being finalised.
Employees are being kept fully informed of the situation as it affects them. They will continue to be informed as the situation develops and, for the time being, no redundancy is contemplated and the Board will try to maintain this for as long as possible. Meanwhile, the normal provisions of the railway guaranteed week agreement will apply.
Those words were welcomed by my right hon. Friend who was then Minister of Transport, and I ask the Secretary of State for Wales to confirm them categorically when he replies. It will be helpful if he does so because there are some people—they are few—who will cast doubts about everything and exploit every misfortune.
It is my duty as the Member for Anglesey, and a native of Holyhead, to raise a number of important questions, and I am glad to have opportunity to do so before the rising of the House. It is clear that the bridge must be made operational before life can return to normality in Anglesey. In the interim period, a good many people will suffer varying degrees of inconvenience, and many will suffer financial loss.
Anglesey is going through a period of change and growth. The prospects for the county, with the establishment of new industries, the expansion of tourism and the construction of houses, roads and other amenities, have never been so good. The damage to the bridge has been a severe setback to the county, but it is a temporary setback and we shall get back on course when the bridge is restored.
British Railways Board is currently investing over £7 million in new installations and ships for Holyhead, and rightly so because of its fine natural harbour and the short sea journey of about three hours to Ireland. It is, therefore, very much in the Board's interests, financially and commercially, to see the bridge back in commission. People's livelihood is involved. Industries are materially affected. The date of completion of the work is, therefore, of vital importance. We have been told that it will take up to 12 months. I hope that the Minister will be good enough to give an up-to-date assessment of the likely date to the House today.
I choose my words deliberately when I say that it is absolutely essential that there be no avoidable delay in securing engineers who will reconstruct the bridge as quickly as is humanly possible. If there is any red tape, or if there are any corners, let them be cut. A disrupted community expects the work to be done speedily.
I am sure that the Anglesey County Council and the Caernarvonshire County Council, as planning authorities, and the Fine Arts Commission which also is interested will expedite their side of the matter.
Secondly, I hope that the freightliner service which is now being rerouted to Caernarvon will continue to operate until things are normal again.
Thirdly, a suggestion has been made by the Holyhead branch of the National Union of Railwaymen that the motor vessels "Cambria" and "Hibernia" should run a winter service between Holyhead and Dunlaoghaire. This may present difficulties, but it would keep men at work, and I shall be grateful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman can comment on this possibility.
Fourthly, the cattle trade between Dublin and Anglesey is of importance


both to the Republic of Ireland and to this country as well as to the agricultural industry in Anglesey itself. There are strong grounds for continuing this trade, and I think that facilities can be constructed on the Anglesey side to make it practicable. I hope that the Secretary of State will give me an assurance that there will be no break in the cattle trade during the interim period while the bridge is being reconstructed.
Another crucial matter is the position of established personnel until the port is once more working to full capacity. There are men and women in Holyhead who have worked all their lives in the service of the railway and the port. Through no fault of theirs, their livelihood is put at risk. I wish to say of the British Railways Board that up to 4th July these men and women were treated very fairly. I understand that negotiations are still proceeding between the management and the staff, and I do not wish to prejudice those negotiations by anything I say in this debate. None the less, I hope that work will be found for all, or as many as possible, and that any redundancy arrangements which are arrived at will be generous and that established staff will be re-employed at the earliest possible moment. I see no difficulty in the way of the British Railways Board making a clear statement that all established personnel will be re-engaged when the port is operating to full capacity once again. It is not unreasonable to ask this in all the circumstances of the disaster.
I have asked the British Railways Board to consider providing as much additional repair work at the marine yard and the docks at Holyhead as possible during the coming months. Winter will be bleak in Holyhead this year, and we shall need as much work there as we can have. I am glad to say that the British Railways Board appeared to react favourably to my suggestion and they are looking carefully into it.
I come now to the fire itself. Those who saw it, either at the scene or on television, will recall its intensity along the whole length of the bridge. It is remarkable that it should have gone on fire after more than a century's use by steam engines of various kinds. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what kind of inquiry into the disaster is being

held? There was no watchman on the bridge to sound the alarm there. There were no fire hydrants for use by the fire brigades on either of the approaches to the bridge, on the Caernarvonshire or the Anglesey side. The fire was raging before the fire brigades arrived on the scene and had their chance.
I pay a warm tribute to the men of the Anglesey and Caernarvonshire fire brigades for their skill and courage. They did everything that men could possibly do in the circumstances. I hope that we shall be told that there is an inquiry and that its results will be made public, for it is clear that there are lessons to be learned from this disaster. The British Railways Board will recognise this as it has other important bridges, though none more important or more historic than this.
We have had brought home to us that an island of 56,000 people dependent upon two bridges is very vulnerable. These bridges must be safeguarded in every possible way. Indeed, the disaster has pointed to the need for a second road bridge. I put some preliminary work in hand on this when I occupied the right hon. and learned Gentleman's position as Secretary of State for Wales, and I am glad to I know that he is now looking at the matter himself. I take this opportunity to congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his appointment. I was proud to hold his Ministry and to serve my native country in it, and I am sure that he feels the same. I wish him every success during his tenure of office.
I have absolute faith in the future of Anglesey and in the port of Holyhead. With co-operation and understanding, we can overcome our present difficulties, severe though they may be, and go on to a bright future.

11.19 a.m.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Thomas): It is sad that the first occasion on which I have to participate in a debate since assuming office should be to consider the aftermath of such a tragic event as the fire on 24th May which closed the Britannia railway bridge. I am, however, grateful to the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) for raising the subject, for it gives me the opportunity not only to pay tribute to him, as I gladly do, for his considerable and steadfast efforts since


the fire to stimulate remedial action but also to express my personal interest in the matter and my determination that the difficulties created for Anglesey by the closure of the bridge should be removed as rapidly and as smoothly as possible. The right hon. Gentleman knows that my interest is not academic or remote. This is a part of Wales for which I have considerable and abiding affection.
It is understandable that we should feel concern at the possible economic implications of the closure of the bridge, and it is very sensible that they should be discussed here. I hope that what I have to say will indicate the concern which we share about the situation and at the same time be of some reassurance to the people of Anglesey.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a number of specific questions, and I shall try to answer them during the course of what I have to say. He requested that there should be a public inquiry into the cause of the fire. I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, and I understand that the circumstances of the fire have been thoroughly investigated by both the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways and the Railways Board. As a result, it was decided that no public inquiry was necessary. The cause of the fire has also been the subject of police investigation, and I understand that action in the courts is pending. But certainly I will pass the right hon. Gentleman's views on to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.
As to the implications of the disaster, I should like to say at the outset that the Government have taken the situation resulting from the closure of the bridge very seriously indeed, and we have examined in depth the full implications of the closure. I was briefed on the situation immediately upon assuming office and since that time I have kept in constant touch with all the Government Departments concerned in pursuance of the various aspects of the situation, with British Railways and with the Anglesey County Council and with other local interests.
In addition, a study has been made of the economic implications for Anglesey of the closure of the bridge with detailed investigations of the effects of the closure

on manufacturing industry, agriculture, tourism and employment. The pressure of other commitments has prevented me from visiting Anglesey to date, but I have now made arrangements to do so at the beginning of the Recess.
The first implication of the closure of the Britannia Railway Bridge is that there is now only one link for land-borne traffic between Anglesey and the mainland—the Menia suspension road bridge. It is necessary, therefore, to give the highest priority to ensuring that this link is kept open and that there is no interruption to the flow of traffic on the bridge. Immediately following closure of the railway bridge steps were taken to draw to the attention of all road transport organisations using the road bridge to the need to comply strictly with the restrictions on the use of the bridge. These limit both the weight and size of loads crossing the bridge, and in addition specify a procedure for the prior notification to the Chief Constable of the Gwynedd Constabulary of the crossing of the bridge by vehicles of a certain size. Arrangements are then made for them to be escorted across.
However, despite the precautions there was a slight accident on the bridge on 25th June, when a low-loader transporter carrying a railway coach came into contact with the bridge. Following this accident the weight limit on the bridge was reduced as a temporary measure until an engineering report had been received on the bridge. It has subsequently been represented to me by the Anglesey County Council that while the Menai suspension bridge remains the only link between Anglesey and the mainland, it would be prudent, in the interests of safeguarding the flow of traffic over the bridge, if restrictions in respect of weights, loads and speed limits were placed on it. This proposal has been the subject of discussion between officials of my Department and of the County Council, and I have decided to give notice of my intention to make an Order under the Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1967 imposing the appropriate restrictions. This will be done forthwith. The weight limit is 32 tons, the wheel base limit nine feet, and the speed limit 15 m.p.h.
I should like to emphasise that these measures are not panic measures arising out of fear that any great catastrophe will occur to the bridge. They are intended


to be sensible and prudent measures having regard to the circumstances, and we should be at fault if we did not undertake them. The road bridge has been examined. It is a very strong structure in excellent condition and quite capable of coping with the full flow of traffic expected. While speaking on this point may I take the opportunity of paying a warm tribute to the Anglesey County Council, which has acted, throughout with commendable good sense and has given us enormous help in our consideration of this difficult situation.
I have spoken of the precautionary steps we have taken to safeguard the flow of traffic through the road bridge. It is of course the existince of this bridge which has ameliorated the effect of the closure of the railway bridge on day-to-day life in Anglesey. The idea of a second road crossing of the Menai Straits, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, has of course been mooted for some time. As the right hon. Gentleman said, he himself when Secretary of State started looking into the matter. A detailed traffic survey has been set in train to determine the case for a second road crossing, but this is something which cannot deal with the immediate situation in Anglesey. Even the existence of the one bridge has enabled a number of businesses which formerly used rail transport to make alternative arrangements, at least for the time being.
It might be of interest to refer to the three major industrial plants on the island. The chemical plant, Associated Octel Ltd., normally imports raw materials and exports the finished product by special rail tank wagons. These have now been converted to road transport. Both the conversion and the operation of the new system do, however, involve extra costs to the firm, but these are not expected to give rise to any redundancies.
The second major industrial plant on the Island is the aluminium smelter—R.T.Z./Anglesey Aluminium Metals—which is in course of construction. Steel and some other constructional materials which would have been brought in by rail will now come in by road, which could give rise to some problems, but the construction is unlikely to be affected by the closure of the bridge. Similarly,

the inward movement of raw materials for stock-piling which will become an increasing feature of the build-up of the plant over the next six months will be possible. Liquid petroleum gas will be brought in by road tanker from tanker trains at Bangor, and petroleum coke will probably be brought by sea through Holyhead. I understand that the company hopes to despatch the first of its output in February of next year, and subsequently there will be a progressive build-up of output to peak production in about June 1971. It had been originally intended to transport output by rail but road transport will have to be used by the firm until the bridge is again operational. By June this will involve about 20 lorries per day to transport the output.
Third, it will be possible to bring in the remainder of the material needed to complete the Wylfa nuclear power station—and this is, I understand, mainly light steel—by the road bridge and there should not therefore, for this reason, be any delay in commissioning the station beyond December of this year. The station when in operation will be dependent upon a regular supply of carbon dioxide. I gather that this is for the heat transfer system in the station's boilers. It has always been envisaged that this would be brought in by road tanker but with railway tanker as a contingency standby; the closure of the railway bridge means of course that, apart from sea transport, which would be much more costly, there is temporarily no contingency standby. It had also been proposed to transport irradiated uranium, which will become available from Wylfa nuclear power station about mid-1971, to Winscale in 50-ton railway containers.
The weight restrictions on the bridge preclude road transport. Whilst it is possible to use sea transport, I am told that there are practical difficulties about it. But as I have indicated, this is not a problem which will arise for nearly a year hence. But it is another indication of the need to get the railway bridge into operation as quickly as possible.
Quite apart from the way in which in the short term the major industrial plants in the Island seem to be able to adapt their supply and despatch of imports and outputs away from rail to road transport, I also understand that


the smaller firms on the Island already tend to use road as opposed to rail transport and with few exceptions will not be embarrassed by the closure of the railway bridge.
Tourism is an important element in Anglesey's economy and for all practical purposes should not be affected by the Britannia Bridge closure. This is because the proportion of Anglesey's holiday traffic which uses the railway is small—most holiday makers tend to come there by car or by rail to Bangor and then on by road to the East and North East coasts of the Island. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why anyone, whether travelling by road or rail should in any way be deterred from spending a holiday on the island. Thousands of people have done so since the Britannia Bridge fire and they will, I am certain, confirm that the accident has not spoilt their holiday in the slightest degree.
I am therefore extremely grateful for the prompt action which the Wales Tourist Board has taken to make all this clear. Among a number of general measures it has undertaken to promote tourism in Anglesey, it has sent literature to some 400 tourist offices, holiday booking offices and the like in the United Kingdom stressing that continued access to the Island on the road bridge presents no difficulty.
In addition, a tour of the Island by leading British travel writers has been arranged and an exhibition is being arranged for Euston Station. As regard the need to avoid traffic congestion on the bridge, the Gwynedd Police Force is fully appraised of the situation and as far as is possible will try to arrange the spacing of heavy vehicles so that they use the bridge at off peak periods. I am pleased to say that to my knowledge there is no evidence to date that the holiday trade in Anglesey has suffered as a result of the fire.
Before I come on to the more serious effects of the Britannia Bridge closure, there is one other aspect to which I should like to refer. This relates to the effects on shipping using the Menai Straits and passing underneath the bridge structure, in particular small oil tankers going into Caernarvon from Stanlow. On 18th June, the Hydrographer of the Navy on the advice of the Board of Trade issued

a notice to mariners warning them of possible danger to navigation from steel debris which might have fallen from the bridge into the Straits and advising that shipping should not pass under the bridge until further notice because the stability of the bridge structure might be affected by extremes of temperature or high winds.
During the reconstruction of the bridge, there will in all probability have to be some restriction on the use of the Straits, and arrangements have been made for British Railways to keep the Board of Trade fully informed so that notices to mariners may be issued by the Hydrographer of the Navy at the appropriate time.
I should not like to give the impression from what I have said so far that the closure of the Britannia Railway Bridge is other than a serious event. I have, I think, already given a pretty fair indication that even in the industrial sector where the use of the road bridge can ameliorate matters, there will be some problems. But the main difficulties, of course, arise at Holyhead.
It is not often appreciated that Holyhead is the fourth largest passenger port in the country. About three-quarters of a million passengers a year are normally carried between Holyhead and Dun Laoghaire and nearly all of them arrive at Holyhead by rail over the Britannia Railway Bridge. The closure of the bridge has involved the transfer of the cross-Irish Sea passenger services and the supporting boat trains from Holyhead to Heysham and, in addition, the mail traffic, which runs at an annual total of 800,000 bags and which is normally carried across the Irish Sea by the passenger ships, has been diverted, some of it to air freight. Fortunately the Holyhead-Dun Laoghaire car ferry service, which operates between April and October and at Christmas and which carries upwards of 80,000 cars a year, is unaffected by the closure of the railway bridge and continues to operate.
In addition to passenger traffic, Holyhead is an important freight port. On 1969 figures, the annual trade amounted to 41,000 containers of roughly 143,000 tons of cargo, 32,000 tons of general cargo and 170,000 head of cattle. This trade is carried on by four cargo and container-carrying vessels, two of which also carry livestock.
The Irish cattle traffic makes a very significant contribution to the viability of the Port of Holyhead and to the agriculture of the Island. The capacity to handle live animals at Holyhead is also a very important part of the United Kingdom's total import capacity in this respect. Normally, about 90 per cent. of the cattle imported from Ireland through Holyhead are for markets in England and are sent on from Holyhead by rail. The immediate effect of the closure of the bridge has been a diversion of some of this trade to other ports, including Birkenhead, Silloth and Heysham. Once the bridge is restored, however, it is reasonable to expect that this traffic will return to Holyhead. Indeed, there had been a marked increase in throughput of cattle through the port—the port enjoys the very significant advantage of being within a short sea journey of Ireland, which is of great importance in the cattle trade.
As far as farming on the Island is concerned, of the 30,000 or so fat cattle produced annually on Anglesey farms, 15,000 are imported via Holyhead as store animals from Ireland and distributed throughout the county by road. This traffic is unlikely to be affected by the bridge closure but the diversion of the passenger services to Heysham will inconvenience some Anglesey farmers travelling to Ireland to buy store cattle.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the freightliner service to Caernarvon would continue until the Britannia Bridge was once more operational. As he will know, British Railways established the present temporary container terminal at Caernarvon, from which the containers are taken by road to Holyhead, on 15th June. I am given to understand that it is the firm intention of British Railways to continue its present freightliner operation at Caernarvon until the Britannia Bridge is once more operational.
The right hon. Gentleman has inquired about the possibility that the passenger ships "Cambria" and "Hibernia" could revert from Heysham to Holyhead during the winter months. I think it is generally accepted that during the coming summer months it would not be possible to cope with the usual large volume of passengers

through Holyhead by way of coach to Bangor without causing the passengers a great deal of inconvenience. However, I take it that what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind is that it would be possible to cope with this operation with the much smaller volume of passengers in the winter months.
This was a view which was put to my officials by the Anglesey County Council and British Railways reactions have been sought. They have pointed out that there would be considerable organisational difficulties involved, including the problem of dealing with peak passenger flows at Christmas and Easter. In particular, as many of the passenger ships arrive at night, they do not feel that passengers would look favourably upon the idea of transferring from train to coach at night, in wintry conditions and under makeshift conditions. Nevertheless, I will take careful note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said about this matter and will ensure that his views are brought once again to the attention of the British Rail authorities.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether the cattle boats would continue to run to Holyhead. Once the bridge is restored, of course, one would expect, as I have indicated, the status quo to be restored. In the meantime, the possibility of an increase in the movement of cattle by road is being discussed by British Rail, the Ministry of Agriculture and the firms concerned.
British Railways have recently had discussions with representatives of the Irish cattle exporters' trade about this. The scheme would involve the importation of cattle through Holyhead and subsequent transportation by road to a rail head on the mainland. I understand that a number of difficulties have to be resolved, the main one being the inadequate facilities for loading road vehicles at the Holyhead lairage. I hope, however, that it will be possible to resolve any difficulties so that further importation of cattle can take place.
But the Railways Board is of the opinion that there is no real risk that the traffic diverted from Holyhead because of the closure will be lost permanently. I entirely share this view. The port of Holyhead has much to commend it—a sea journey to Ireland which reduces the


demand for vessels by half and which enables livestock in particular to make the crossing with little or no stress. However, in the short term it is inescapable that there will be temporary redundancies. I understand that some British Rail staff have been transferred to the passenger ships or the freight distribution centres at Bangor and Caernarvon, and it was no doubt to explore the possibility of further transfer to save redundancies that the right hon. Member asked whether British Railways would consider giving Holyhead additional ship repair work to tide it over this coming difficult period. British Railways will, I am sure, give this suggestion very careful consideration, although I understand from them that physically the Marine Repair Shop at Holyhead is working near full capacity and that if it proved possible to transfer additional repair work there it would require men with different skills from those made redundant.
British Rail in conjunction with representatives of the staff at Holyhead are engaged in working out the details of the redundancy which will be involved because of the closure of the bridge. It has not been necessary to date actually to declare anyone redundant, but some 30 men have voluntarily accepted the redundancy and resettlement arrangements which have been made. As it is seen at present, the total number who will be made redundant will be about 160 and the redundancies will be staged between August and November.
The right hon. Member has asked whether an assurance can be given by British Railways that they will re-engage those made redundant when the bridge is reopened. British Railways have indicated that they can give an assurance only that they will re-engage the number of men who are necessary to deal with the traffic levels when the bridge reopens. Arrangements are being made for the men who are made redundant to be kept fully informed of developments at two-monthly intervals. The normal redundancy arrangements which are based on length of service will apply. These provide for a period of notice as well as a lump sum and resettlement payments.
It is, of course, possible that some of those declared redundant will get jobs

in some of the expanding firms on the Island but in view of the already high rate of unemployment in Anglesey the immediate effect on the Island's economy and particularly on Holyhead will be significant. This I consider to be the most serious implication of the closure of the Britannia Bridge and it adds very great weight to every effort being made to complete the rebuilding operation as soon as possible.
I am sorry to have been so long but I think it was right that I should go into this matter in some detail because, as the right hon. Gentleman said, people on the Island are extremely concerned.
The right hon. Member asked whether British Railways would give a fairly firm date when the Britannia Bridge will again become operational. As the right hon. Member knows, work has already commenced to support the existing structure of the bridge prior to reconstruction work proper commencing and in this connection I should like to pay tribute to the Royal Engineers engaged upon this very hazardous work in particularly exposed conditions. We cannot disguise the fact that the rebuilding operation is not without its difficulties British Railways very much hope, however, that the work to make the bridge operational can be completed by June of next year. They have indicated that they will do everything possible to expedite the reconstruction work and I can assure the House that they will be given all the encouragement possible by Her Majesty's Government.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to say that so far as I was concerned there would be no avoidable delay, and I gladly and unequivocally give him that assurance.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, may I thank him for a most comprehensive reply and put one point to him. He has said that the British Railways Board consider that within a short time of the bridge being repaired the traffic, both of passengers and goods, will return to normal and the expansion of the port will go on. In that event, would he not regard it as reasonable that British Railways should give careful consideration to the point I have made, namely that established personnel who have lost their jobs through


no fault of their own should be re-engaged at the end of this period?

Mr. Thomas: I am sure that British Rail will consider this carefully. I know that they are anxious that there should be so sufferers among their staff as a result of the closure of the Bridge.

GENERAL ELECTION (DISFRANCHISED ELECTORS)

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Tilney) to open the next debate, may I remind the House that we are on the Adjournment and that we can debate matters which can be solved administratively. We cannot debate matters which can be solved only by legislation. The hon. Member for Wavertree has been advised about the narrow rope along which he must walk. Other hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate had better come to the Chair or Table, and we will advise them.

11.45 a.m.

Mr. John Tilney: I count myself lucky so soon after the General Election to be able to call attention to the methods whereby some voters have been deprived of the power of voting. I accept that I cannot change the law, as some of my colleagues who signed Early Day Motion No. 1 would have liked to do. The Motion reads:
[That, so that no one is needlessly deprived of their right to vote and in order to meet the convenience of electors, this House urges Her Majesty's Government as soon as possible to take action so that a postal vote may be claimed by people away from their home on holiday.]
In this debate I cannot even debate whether they should be able to vote by proxy, which I would much prefer. All parties have been affected. The poll in Newcastle-under-Lyne was 65 per cent. as against 78 per cent. in the last two elections, while at Stoke the average poll was down to 50 per cent. over the three constituencies compared with figures in 1966 of 68 per cent., 72 per cent., and 71 per cent.
We have had the first June election since 1841 in highly agreeable weather,

the most beautiful June that many of us can remember for decades. There was an election in May 1955. However, even since 1955 there have been considerable social changes. The basic legislation is the Representation of the People Act, 1949, which has been amended several times especially by the Representation of the People Act, 1969. Side by side with them, are various statutory instruments particularly No. 904 of 1969. There have also been a number of letters from the Home Office to electoral registration officers who are the same as returning officers.
The 1949 Act remains the main Act. Conditions were very different 21 years ago. People did not have holidays as they do today. I well remember at the outbreak of war that one of the Scammell drivers in my battery said that he had never been out of Cheshire and Lancashire in his life. Now people go all over Britain, to Europe and even beyond in very large numbers. We are told by the Government that we must stagger our holidays and even this House, comparatively recently, has changed August Bank Holiday. People have to book their hotel accommodation and their passages months ahead and they cannot be expected to change their arrangements for a sudden General Election. An odd thing is that under the law, once one has a postal vote for business purposes, one can go away purely on holiday and still have a postal vote.

Mr. Speaker: Order. In an adjournment debate, the hon. Gentleman must not propose the solving of this problem by legislation. He can merely argue that Prime Ministers should hold elections at times when the hon. Gentleman thinks they should be held.

Mr. Tilney: I hope to show, by mentioning the advice given by the Home Office to electoral registration officers, that certain changes have been made by the Administration and not by the law. But to do that I must explain the circumstances in which that advice has been given.
I do not believe that anyone would like us to follow the Australian example and introduce forced voting or fines if people did not vote. It would mean that, instead of nine days being the limit, excluding Sundays and dies non,


between the close of nomination and election days, there would have to be a much longer period, thus prolonging the General Election campaign, which nobody would like. It is obvious that a postal vote cannot be issued until nominations have closed.
I pay tribute to the electoral registration officers and their staff who, by and large, usually get the postal votes out on time. It is a very complicated process. The ballot paper must be printed, checked and put into a special envelope. With that special envelope is a declaration form and another envelope together with instructions about how the ballot paper should be signed and the declaration form completed. It must be sent to the right address and then handed to the Post Office so that parliamentary government, which is different from democracy, should not only be made to work but should be seen to work properly. There is not much time for preparation. There are only four days, including Sundays, between the last day of application to vote by post and nomination day.
I should like to refer to Home Office Circular RPA141, particularly paragraph 22, which reads:
Regulation 29(b)(2) makes a change in respect of applications for absent voting certificates on the ground of physical incapacity. It requires the registration officer to be satisfied as to an application on this ground if the application is signed by a registered medical practitioner or by a Christian Science practitioner. But it enables"—
and "enables" is underlined—
a registration officer to be satisfied if the certificate is signed by some other person, or is not signed at all. Form RPF7 will continue to be printed with a form of certificate providing for signature by a registered medical practitioner; if the certificate is signed by some other person, it can be amended accordingly.
Electoral registration officers seem to have reacted in different ways to that circular. Some appear never to have seen it and therefore have issued postal votes only when the certificate has been signed by a medical officer. Others have accepted certificates signed by welfare officers, matrons and district nurses. Yet others, in the spirit of the Circular, have accepted postal votes with no one's signature in support. This is unsatisfactory, although I prefer the most lenient interpretation of the regulations.
I turn to the question of the disfranchisement of many Service voters who did not reappoint their proxies which now must be done every year. I understand that the reason for this is that in the past many Service men and women appointed proxies and then forgot that they had done so and their proxies remained in force for years after they had left the Services, but their attention is drawn to this only in Part I Orders. Some service men and women never see Part I Orders or may be in transit from one unit to another. Can something be done to improve the method whereby the Services bring to the notice of Service men and women their right to apply for the appointment of a proxy to vote for them?
During the last election, in some constituencies there were not enough forms, particularly RPF7, dealing with incapacitated people and those who require a business vote, RPF8, which is for those who have moved outside their erstwhile constituency, and RPF10A, enabling people such as seafarers, Servicemen or businessmen going overseas, to apply for a proxy vote. I am told that in some constituencies the supply was very limited. In Liverpool, it was rationed. There were enough in Wavertree but only after several visits to the municipal buildings. I accept that these forms can be photo-stated, but then one does not get the official paid envelopes.
I turn to the question of the delays in the posting of postal votes to recipients. I understand the difficulties of many electoral registration officers, who were faced with a possible N.A.L.G.O. strike, and who also had staff shortages. They must also cope with delays in the Post Office. We all know of the time which even first class mail takes to arrive at its destination. The result is that in the recent election a number of postal votes arrived on polling day which, unless the person could arrange for delivery of the postal vote by hand, was obviously too late.
I now wish to refer to the great mistakes which have been made in the electoral register. In Liverpol, Form A is sent out some time before 10th October, which is when everyone should be registered. The form is sent back by most, but not all, people and therefore follow-up checks are made by able and


conscientious checkers. However, when they do so, they find that many inhabitants are out on business and many homes are occupied only at night whereas the checkers operate only by day. Therefore, they must rely on neighbours and frequently the result is wrong. The cost of this exercise, inclusive of enumerators, in Liverpool was as much as £11,000 in 1969–70.
When that is done the draft of the new register is produced for checking. It is displayed between 28th November and 16th December. It is in three parts—list A, the current one; list B, those to be added; and list C, those to be deleted. If the relevant page of list A were to be issued with form A, I suggest that there would be no need to have so many checkers. People would be made more aware of the reason for, and the result of, form filling and many mistakes could be avoided.
In Wavertree there was a child of four and another child of seven on the register. People who had been on the register for 20 years found themselves off. There were many who had the same name as their parents, possibly with one Christian name added, but only one had been recorded.
I am told that in the past even one Member of the House found that he had been omitted from the register. Many people found that their late spouses who may have been dead for two or three years were still on the register, thus causing unnecessary sorrow to them and giving others scope for malpractice.
I well remember that when I first stood for the Liverpool City Council after the war in St. Peter's ward in the Exchange Division I was recommended to have an impersonating agent. He found that there was some person who had taken to heart the illegal maxim, "Vote early and often". When one was apprehended doing this it was obvious that he had been watching with care the death notices in the Press. No wonder everyone is told that they should check the register.
Apparently, they should check it between 28th November and 16th December. The draft is shown in municipal offices, at post offices and in libraries. I am told that in Gravesend it is displayed in the welfare centre and

at the public baths also. It is not easy for those who live in scattered constituencies to check, even if they see the small advertisements which usually appear, to remind them that they should check whether their name is on the register. In all constituencies there must be people who at that time are either away or ill. If all people checked I suspect that few stamps would be sold or postal packages despatched or even books lent so many people are expected to go and check.
I therefore suggest that, to save money and reduce the number of checkers, it might well be worth while sending the relevant page of the current register with form A and with advice such as "Please advise at once in the enclosed envelope if this register is incorrect as a record of the occupants of this dwelling who will be of voting or near voting age on 10th October" or in the exact phraseology set out on form A. If subsequent complaints came in, it would then be largely or in major measure the fault of the voters concerned. They are much more likely to take action if they see that their name has been wrongly entered or omitted. They would also readily notice the absence of other names that should be included.
The people are much more mobile than they were in 1949. Is it not right that all British people should have a say in the choosing of the Government of their country?

12.5 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) on choosing a subject for his Adjournment debate which is of such importance to our democratic practice. I should like to follow him in the last points he made about mistakes on the register. All hon. Members, having fought the recent General Election, will have found people right up to Election day who suffered and had a sense of grievance about this matter.
I will not follow the hon. Gentleman in the generality of his remarks. I will deal with three categories of people who had the right, at the last General Election, to be on the register but who found themselves not on it for one reason or


another. I want to put to the Minister three kinds of case and ask him whether he will accept some suggestions I shall make for action with regard to those cases.
Two of the kinds of cases are specially related to the circumstances in my constituency. The third is more general, although it had a relation to voting in my constituency, as it did, I think, to that of many other hon. Members.
The first category of voters I wish to deal with is that of student voters and the recent controversy there has been over their residence qualification. In my constituency there are many students halls of residence, including one extremely large one. In my constituency, students in these halls of residence play an active and lively part in community life, including the work of the churches, and therefore they have a relationship to the life of the division and while they are in the division they can genuinely feel themselves part of it.
The law relating to student voting—it does not specifically refer to students—is Section 4 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, which was not amended by the 1969 Act. Section 4 is extremely ambiguous. The Home Office issued guidance to electoral registration officers about how to interpret this Section. This guidance, too, was so ambiguous that it led to a great many anomalies in different parts of the country and, indeed, to anomalies within parliamentary constituencies.
As a result of this guidance and the interpretation of it by electoral registration officers, some applications by students for votes in the city or town in which their university was situated were allowed, but others were disallowed. The phrase "constructive residence" was employed to interpret it, but that phrase in itself was very ambiguous.
In my division, for example, some students who lived in flats or houses were allowed votes. Others who lived in halls of residence were not, though others who lived in halls of residence were. This applied, not only in Manchester, but in very many other places.
It is very well known that students often do not have the choice of where they live. They are allocated to a hall of

residence, or, if they are not, they have to go into a house or a flat. Therefore, a random situation of this kind decided whether a student was permitted a vote by the electoral registration officer.
In any case, although in some cases a student living in a hall of residence was allowed a vote, in other places a student living in a hall of residence was not allowed a vote. Further, some students, having been denied a vote because they lived in a university hall of residence, appealed to the county court and were turned down by the county court, wheras others, having been allowed a vote, did not have to appeal to the county court.
Therefore, there were remarkably anomalous situations in which some students were allowed a vote by an electoral registration officer and others in precisely the same circumstances were denied a vote by a county court judge. These anomalies applied within my own constituency. Matters were considerably clarified on—

Mr. David Lane: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the student vote, because many of us are particularly concerned in this. Does he intend to come on to the question of the Court of Appeal judgment, because too, hope that we can have some clarification from the Minister of State as to what exactly the present situaton is, if he is able to give it?

Mr. Kaufman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that. In fact, I was this very moment coming on to the question of the Court of Appeal judgment, which I know applies to his constituency.
On 12th May the Master of the Rolls gave a judgment in the Appeal Court. The Times Law Report stated it thus:
Students in colleges or halls of residence at universities are entitled to be placed on the electoral roll in any constituency as persons resident there on the qualifying date, October 10 in every year, because there is a sufficient degree of permanence attaching to their living at the university to satisfy the tests laid down by the Representation of the People Acts. 1949 to 1969.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, this applies to an appellant from his own constituency.
That being so, I would ask the Minister of State whether that judgment given by the Master of the Rolls could be sent out


by the Home Office to electoral registration officers as guidance, so that instead of having many local variations we could have one national criterion for the student vote.
The second category of voters whom I wish to mention are the immigrant voters. There are in my constituency a substantial number of these, though there are fewer than in many other constituencies, and, according to information I have received, some hundreds of voters in the Ardwick constituency failed to appear on the register. Many others, of course, did appear on the register. It is agreed, I think, on all sides that immigrants who are here are citizens of this country and it is the best thing for community relations that they should accept their duties and responsibilities as citizens of this country, and these include the use of the vote. I think there is little doubt that many of them are unaware of their duty to register because it is not clearly enough explained to people who are not acquainted with the finer use of the English language.
Yesterday I put a Question to the Home Secretary and the Minister of State was good enough to give me a written Answer to it, in which I asked,
if he will enumerate the methods of publicity he plans to employ in October of this year to ensure that all householders are fully aware of the need to register all eligible residents in their households for the 1971 Electoral Register.
The Minister of State answered fairly, saying that his right hon. Friend is considering the detailed arrangements, but said:
There will be publicity in the national and local Press and on radio and television."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1970; Vol. 804, c. 183.]
I would suggest in regard to immigrant voters that it would be a great help if the Home Office were to approach the British Broadcasting Corporation and ask that in the period approaching 10th October special facilities should be given in the Sunday morning television programmes for immigrants, so that they may be made fully aware of their duties and rights and responsibilities and get their names on the Electoral Register.
The Home Office is also by chance responsible for community relations and it might be helpful if it used the machinery of community relations which is at

the Deparment's disposal to try to make it known to the leaders of immigrant communities that they should advise the members of those communities on how to fill in the forms and to get their names on the register.
The third category of voters I wish to mention are the 18 to 21 year olds. Everybody knows that in the last Election there were many thousands—perhaps, some people think, many hundreds of thousands—of those who were denied the right to vote because of errors in filling out the electoral registration forms. I know that many of my own constituents were involved, and I am sure everybody in this Chamber has examples of his own he could provide. It could be said that one of the reasons for this was that this was the very first time that people between the ages of 17 and 21 had their names on the register and that, therefore, their parents might have been inexperienced in filling up the form relating to them.
I would, therefore, because I think that the situation, though perhaps in a less aggravated form, is likely to arise again, make a third suggestion to the Minister of State, as to what might be done as regards the electoral registration form. Since I understand that the form in its content can be varied only by Statutory Instrument, and I doubt whether it is now possible for that variation to take place before the new forms are distributed, it might not be possible to implement major changes in the form this year.
I hope that that may be looked at very carefully for next year, because it is an extremely complicated form. I myself have found it very difficult to understand in places. I would suggest that it be gone through with great care to see whether it can be simplified and whether some of the matter in it can be omitted, because it complicates without having any very great relevance. I suggest that the matters under the heading Jury Service and the postal vote might be looked at carefully, and the columns in Part II of the form are extremely complicated and difficult to understand. I suggest they should be looked at again to see whether they can be made simpler for those people filling them in.
Without the variation by Statutory Instrument there is one alteration which can be made this year provided the forms are not already printed, and that is right at the beginning of the form, where it says how to complete the form. If that particular point were put at the end of the first paragraph and laid out in a different way, and if the age qualification could be put in bold type, and if, perhaps, a box could be put round it, so that it has prominence and importance, that might be of assistance to people having to fill out the form and it might help people to get the names of more of the younger members of their families on the register.
Secondly I would suggest, in regard to publicity, that there are two kinds of publicity which might be used in order to get more names of those qualified on to the register. I have been assured by the Minister of State that the national and local Press will be employed in the publicity. I suggest that he gets the people in his Press department to look at readership surveys so that those publications, however unorthodox they may be, which teenage readers mostly read should be used for this publicity—in the case of teenagers of both sexes, perhaps gramophone and record magazines; for girls it might well be the younger women's magazines; for young men, magazines about motor racing: magazines of that kind. I make this as a suggestion. I think it might be worth looking into.
Thirdly I suggest that there should be television publicity employed, and that it should be intensive and vivid, and perhaps might include on all three channels public service advertising spots of the kind which are at present employed for road safety. This would particularly apply to the 18 to 21 year olds. If I may say so with the regard to the 18 to 21 year old voters, this information should be given in advance of the actual electoral registration period. It might be more helpful than what was done last year when the stable door was already closed but after it was closed it was realised that so many people had not registered and an attempt was made to remedy matters, not very efficiently, I think, as it turned out. That being so, I ask the Minister to be good enough seriously to consider the suggestions I have put forward.

12.18 p.m.

Mr. David Lane: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) has chosen this subject today, and I congratulate him on the ingenuity with which he managed to cover so many points within the rules of order. The events of yesterday are causing us all to think hard and anxiously about the working of our free democracy. It is quite right that by coincidence we should spend a short time this morning looking at a narrow but important aspect of that working, the whole problem of enfranchisement.
I found that a particularly agreeable feature about the General Election, apart from the result, was the high degree of interest shown by most electors. Many of my constituents said they were watching every single party political broadcast on television. They must have been gluttons for punishment. One advantage of being a candidate is that one misses those broadcasts.
Also many of us found that our public meetings were better attended than at some recent parliamentary elections. At grass roots our democracy is a good deal healthier than cynics have been thinking. Surely, therefore, it is all the more unfortunate that many of the electors are still, for one reason or another, disfranchised. This is no reflection on the work of the electoral registration officers. I add my tribute to that of my hon. Friend to the work that they and their staffs do in difficult and high-pressure conditions.
I endorse what my hon. Friend said about service voters and what the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) said about immigrant voters. If it is possible for my hon. Friend the Minister of State to say something to clarify the situation regarding the registration of student voters this would be helpful, but I do not want to press him unduly.
The illustration which I want to give of the general problem of disfranchisement, drawing from my constituency experience in the last three years, is one on which I know I cannot dwell in any detail in an adjournment debate and I will simply mention in passing. The last two parliamentary elections which I have fought were a by-election in September three years ago and the General Election last month, both at holiday times. On


each occasion we estimated that between 500 and 1,000 potential electors out of a total of about 65,000 were on holiday too far away to return to vote. If that is typical, it means that in the recent General Election as many as half-a-million electors altogether may have been unable to vote because they were away on holiday. I do not know whether the Minister of State has any estimate of this figure from the Home Office. My own is simply an approximation. If he has such a figure we should be interested to hear it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may not remember what I said to his hon. Friend. There are two ways of solving this problem; one is by legislation, and we cannot talk about that in an adjournment debate; the other is to persuade the Prime Minister to hold the election at the time the hon. Member wants him to and that he may talk about.

Mr. Lane: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. I will not stray any further.
To sum up, we are all apt to say to dissatisfied fellow-citizens that if they do not like what their Government or their council do, their remedy is in the ballot box at regular intervals. It is our duty to reduce to the absolute minimum the number of people who are prevented from using the ballot box when the time comes. The cardinal fact is that the average citizen thinks that there is still a great deal wrong with the present situation.
In parenthesis, in my university constituency there is some feeling that if in future students are to be entitled, if they wish to vote in their university constituencies, it is all the more unfair that there is this difficulty about holiday voting for permanent residents.
It is up to the House and the Government to overcome the difficulties and to rind a solution. I urge the Government to make a fresh investigation of all these problems, and I hope that we shall have a sympathetic response from the Minister of State.

12.23 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr. Richard Sharples): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) for

raising this matter today. He was kind enough to let me have advance warning of the points which he intended to raise, as did the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), and I am most grateful to them both. It has been a constructive and helpful debate, and I shall try to answer in the same vein.
As I am sure my hon. Friend appreciates, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is responsible for the general oversight of electoral law, but the responsibility for the compilation of the register, to which he particularly referred, and for the conduct of elections is laid by law upon individual electoral registration officers and acting returning officers, who are answerable for the performance of their duties not to the Home Secretary but to the courts. I pay tribute to the work of the electoral registration officers. Those of us who are returned to the House always say something about the work of those who have taken part in the election in an official capacity at the meeting after the count. We owe an enormous debt to them for the work which they do.
My hon. Friend raised a number of points about the register itself, as did the hon. Member for Ardwick. Both pointed out that certain mistakes occur in the register. We should keep a sense of proportion about this. There are in the United Kingdom over 39 million electors on the register, and that is what we should remember when considering individual cases of people who have been left off. The registration officer has a general duty to prepare the register in conformity with the law, and to take reasonable steps to obtain information he requires for the purpose. Parliament must be careful not to lay upon him an absolute duty to ensure the accuracy of the register, and indeed it would be impossible for him to comply with such a duty.
To obtain the information he requires, he needs the co-operation of householders, to whom he sends the canvass form, Form A, to which my hon. Friend has referred. The householder has the duty of providing accurate information, and he is told on Form A that the information for which it asks is required by law. The great majority of householders complete the form properly, but some people do not bother to return it, and


some fail to fill it in properly. One often hears about a four-year-old child whose name appears on the register, but when this happens one knows that it is almost certainly the fault of the householder who has misread the form. The registration officer cannot be expected to visit every house and check on the details of the information which the householder provides. He has quite enough to do chasing up forms which have not been returned and following up cases where there is obvious doubt.
As I said, mistakes do happen, and it would be surprising, when there are about 250 registration officers in 630 constituencies who are trying to get nearly 40 million names on the register, if there were not occasional mistakes. Sometimes the mistakes relate to individuals, sometimes to a whole new block of flats and, occasionally, to part of a street. Sometimes electors who are new to a district are left off. Occasionally, as I think happened in the case referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree, electors who have been on the register for many years are left off. Many of these individual mistakes are picked up at the claims and objections stage.
I want to emphasise the importance of this stage. Between 28th November and 16th December each year the electors' lists are published and are on display in public libraries, post offices and so on. List A is the old register, list B is those who seem entitled to be added to it and list C is those who seem no longer entitled to be on it. A great deal of publicity is directed to the fact that these lists are on display and that people should check them to make sure that their name is on the right list. Last year, there was wide publicity in the national and local Press and on radio and television. The hon. Member for Ardwick mentioned publicity being directed to certain groups, such as the immigrant community and the younger voter. I shall certainly consider carefully the helpful suggestions that the hon. Member has made in both directions.
He has a particular point in respect of the immigrant voter and the way in which publicity might be given in those B.B.C. programmes that are directed particularly at the immigrant voter. I shall also consider carefully the suggestion

that he made about bringing these matters to the attention of the younger voter through media that are usually read or seen by the younger voter.
Having said that, and talked about publicity, I submit that there is no excuse for anyone to say that he did not know how or when or where to check the lists. My hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree suggested that in order to get a more accurate register a copy of a page of the draft register should be sent to every householder, for him to check. As I said in answer to a Question on 9th July, this would be disproportionately expensive, and even so would not guarantee a completely accurate register.

Mr. Tilney: I was suggesting sending a copy of a page of the current register and not the draft register. That is different from my suggestion in a previous Question.

Mr. Sharples: My hon. Friend suggests that the current register should be sent at the same time as it is exhibited for people to check their names. That would be the draft register.

Mr. Tilney: No. If my hon. Friend had listened with care he would have heard me suggest that a page of the current register should go out with Form A. That would be helpful.

Mr. Sharples: I should point out that the cost of compiling the register is already over £3 million a year. To adopt the kind of suggestion that my hon. Friend has in mind would probably add at least £1 million a year to that cost. I shall consider his suggestion of sending out a copy of a page from the register itself, but at that time, as I understand it, alterations to the register cannot be made; it is to the draft register that alterations can be made, and if the register itself were sent it would not be possible then to make the necessary alterations.
Householders have a duty to provide accurate information on Form A, and the form to be used this year has been simplified in a number of small ways. It is the duty of people to check this in the first fortnight in December.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick referred to the simplification of the form itself. The 1971 version is now


in preparation. It has certain alterations, in the same direction as those that he suggested. The age—and this applies particularly to the younger voter—is now spelt out in bold type. When he sees it the hon. Member will probably agree that it is a considerable improvement on the form sent out last year. I shall consider, for the 1972 form, the other suggestions made by the hon. Member, but it is not possible at this stage to alter the layout of the form for the 1971 register.
My hon. Friend referred to the question of the distribution of application forms for postal votes, and the shortage of those forms. I was asked a Question about this in the House a fortnight ago, when I said that about 364,000 RPF 7 forms and 273,000 RPF 8 forms were issued by the Stationery Office during the weeks preceding the General Election. These forms were issued in response to orders placed by individual registration officers to supplement their existing stocks.
I am assured by the Stationery Office that there was no general shortage of these forms and that all orders were met in good time. I have not had a single complaint that any individual voter failed to secure a form. What did happen—and this is probably what my hon. Friend was referring to—was that in several places the party agents asked registration officers for large supplies of the forms, which could not be met in full at one time. This may have entailed one or two visits to the town hall to secure all the supplies needed, but I have not heard of anyone having been to put to more inconvenience than that. If my hon. Friend has further information on the subject I shall be glad to have it.
It was suggested that there is some doubt about the latest time for receiving applications for a postal vote. The law is quite clear on the subject. It says that an application shall be disregarded if it is received after the twelfth day before polling day. This meant that at the last Election applications had to be received by Thursday, 4th June. If it is true that anyone had his application rejected because it was received after, say, noon on that day, or after three o'clock, I agree that he would have cause for complaint. As it is, I have heard of two registration officers who each received well over 2,000 application forms on the very last

day, and in each case they were all handed in by the same party agent.
I cannot believe that the applications were all signed on the last day, and to hand them all in at the last moment adds quite unnecessarily to the registration officer's difficulties. Not only does it mean his staff working through the night to get the absent voters' list out in time; it also makes it almost impossible for him to satisfy himself, as he is required to do, that all the applications are in order. I would issue an appeal to all party agents to consider the difficulties of registration officers in this regard and to try to let them have these forms back, or encourage people to send them back, as soon as possible, so that they can be processed during the preparatory stages of the General Election.
Another question referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree was that of postal votes for people applying for them on grounds of physical incapacity. A frequent complaint about such applications is that some registration officers require them to be signed by a doctor, while others do not. This is a difficult matter. We could lay down the law far too carefully and provide no discretion to the registration officer. Because of difficulties that had arisen, the 1969 regulations provided that if the application was signed by a doctor the registration officer must allow it. The emphasis was on the "must", because it was intended to give the registration officer reasonable discretion to allow the application without a doctor's signature if he were satisfied that it was in order. Guidance was given to registration officers to this effect.
Now there are complaints that registration officers are using this discretion differently in different areas. I think it right that the registration officer should have this discretion, but I shall consider what has been said on the point and see whether it is necessary to tighten up the law.
Both my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) referred to the question of Service voters and their registration. Commanding officers in all three Services were instructed that it was their responsibility to ensure that the statutory obligation placed on the Ministry of Defence, to


ensure that any person appearing to be qualified to make a service declaration was given the opportunity to register, was discharged in respect of the men in their command, and the wives of those men if the unit was overseas. The instructions did not specify in detail how this was to be done; it was left to commanding officers to decide in the light of local conditions.
I note what has been said about this in the course of the debate. I would say only that the Ministry of Defence has received very few complaints from Service men, which on investigation have been proved to be justified, that they were not told about the new arrangements and therefore were denied an opportunity to register to vote. I have no reason to believe, therefore, that the arrangements for last year's registration for the current electoral register on which the General Election has just been fought were in general unsatisfactory.
Nevertheless, in the instructions which have been issued about this year's registration, special emphasis has been laid on the need to ensure that personnel on leave or absent on duty during the period of registration are not overlooked and are given the opportunity to register. This, coupled with the fact that more time will be available this year than last, because the Representation of the People Act, 1969, was not passed until May of last year and was followed by the printing strike which delayed the delivery and distribution of new registration forms, should lead to better results this year in terms of numbers of Service men registered. I will keep a careful eye on this matter myself.
There is one other point which was raised by the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick, and it concerned the registration of students. The effect of the Court of Appeal judgment now means that most full-time students will be eligible to register in their university towns as well as at home. Of course, they appreciate that they have only one vote. Revised guidance on this matter is being issued to registration officers and, if it would be helpful to hon. Members, I will arrange for a copy of this revised guidance to be placed in the Library of the House. The new Form A was already in print before the last General

Election and by the time of the court judgment, but we do not expect that any difficulty will arise in this connection.
The other main matter to which reference has been made is difficult to discuss. Those hon. Members who have tried have verged very closely upon the rules of order. It concerns the number of people who were unable to vote in this last General Election for one reason or another. Because I am not able to refer to the other question which arises on that, I would say only that probably a June election disfranchised quite a number of people. This will have to be taken into account when elections are called in future. Every one of us found in our constituencies large numbers of people who were unable to vote because they had arranged to be away on the date of the election.
I cannot refer to the question of changes in the law to meet this problem. I will say only that they raise considerable difficulties, not all of which are apparent on the surface. But they are matters which we are examining closely.
Perhaps I might say again how grateful I am to my hon. Friend for raising these matters and enabling me to explain some of the points raised in the debate.

GLASGOW AIRPORT

12.44 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: The matter which I wish to raise affects Glasgow Corporation considerably. In my view, the city corporation is having a somewhat raw deal.
It was encouraged by the Government of the day, with the aid of a loan of £3 million, to build a new airport. The venture prospered and expansion soon became necessary. As a consequence, a development plan was drawn up in 1967 which provided for an extended main runway to be completed by 1970. Partly from runway development and partly from forecasts of traffic growth, a plan was also prepared for the development of the terminal building to handle 5 million passengers a year, to be completed in 1973. There was also the construction of a new cargo terminal, to be finished by 1972
However, other problems arose and, amongst these was a serious increase in the number of bird strikes during the the winter of 1967–68. Next to Heathrow, Glasgow Airport over this period had the largest number of bird strikes reported at any civil airport. Fortunately, none was dangerous. But, because of this and the need for runway development, an application was made to the county planning office on 8th April, 1968—two years and three months ago—for permission to in-fill the land so as to reduce bird strike hazards and to prepare it for subsequent runway extensions.
That application was called in by the previous Secretary of State for Scotland on the grounds that a runway extension could
… affect the type of traffic using the airport, could have an effect upon social amenity, and the availability of other facilities in Scotland might be a relevant factor.
Despite repeated meetings, no reply to this application was received until 7th February, 1969. The overall programme of airfield development was thus set back by ten months. The delay resulted in an increase in costs from £340,000 to £372,000 for the initial in-fill contract.
At the same time, the corporation was advised that if and when application was made for a runway extension it was unlikely to be granted if the requirement exceeded 8,400 ft. But this statement was without prejudice to the ultimate decision which might be reached.
As a result of the discussions and revisions of the earlier plan, an application was made to the county planning office on 19th December, 1969. However, for various reasons, the Secretary of State's Department did not call in this application until 20th January, 1970, and did so only after several informal requests from the town clerk's office. Yet newer, faster and bigger planes were waiting to use more modern civil airports, and longer and better equipped runways were necessary.
The treatment which later was meted out to Turnhouse appeared to match these new conditions more generously. An £8 million loan was offered to the Edinburgh complex, and every encouragement was given to the improvement of its facilities and the expansion of its services.
These were not enough. The prospective owners of Edinburgh Airport were not enchanted with all those gifts. So, the British Airports Authority wants still more. As Glasgow, after two years' frustration, waits patiently for a little, the London combine from its Prestwick watchtower seeks to make that little less. Here is the proof. On 18th March I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland:
… what objections have been lodged … and by whom against the proposal of Glasgow Airport Authority to lengthen its main runway?
The reply was:
… I have already received ten representations about the proposed runway extension."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1970; Vol. 798, c. 367.]
These on examination showed that six separate individuals objected to the plan. Five lived in the town of Paisley and one in Milngavie—which I may say as a warning to listeners does not spell the way it is pronounced. There were none at all in Prestwick. There were two town councils in Renfrewshire and one in Ayrshire which objected to Glasgow seeking permission to lengthen its runway by 1,400 ft. The chief objection, was, however, away in London, in the person of the British Airports Authority will be little less in Scotland than it about the noise effect if Glasgow's request was granted, despite the fact that already in London not one or two people but literally thousands were finding immense and widespread difficulty in having to bear the noise thrust upon them by the operations of the Authority.
If Edinburgh Airport comes under its management along with Prestwick and with the advent of the jumbo jets the noise contribution from the Authority will be little less in Scotland than it is in London. I submit that the B.A.A. is the last body on earth to protest against the creation of noise in Scotland, where in fact little extra noise will be created.
Because of these harsh facts the Authority has modified its tactics and based the main ground of its objection on what it calls the implications for airport policy in Scotland that would be involved in lengthening the main runway at Abbotsinch by 1,400 ft. In my view, this produces a new low in airport relations. It is the first occasion on


which any airport in the United Kingdom has tried to establish a case against a British airport improving the conditions under which it operates. An attempt was made some years ago to object to another operator bettering himself but this faded out and since then the operators have allowed each other to run their affairs to their own advantage.
By asserting that airport policy in Scotland has been defined by Government as meaning that Glasgow Airport is confined to medium and short-haul traffic while Prestwick is allowed to deal solely with long-haul traffic, the Authority is putting an interpretation on the ministerial outline of policy laid down in 1968 which is completely false. The secondary rôles of airports were left open and no one has taken greater advantage of that fact than B.A.A. It is true that along with the associated organisations it has waged a relentless campaign to obtain domestic services and constantly approaches airlines among them B.E.A., B.U.A., Channel Airways, Dan Air and, in their day, British Eagle, to try to get them to operate short-haul domestic services to and from Glasgow.
At no time has Glasgow objected to this, although it has watched it with interest. It may be right that more domestic services should be operated to and from Prestwick, because already there are services operating between London, Manchester, Birmingham and Prestwick while Belfast is also served from time to time as part of the B.O.A.C. network. Glasgow does not object to this believing as it does that passenger preference should be paramount. What we do object to in Glasgow is the "dog in the manger" attitude of the B.A.A. and its associated concerns. Greedily they seek an extension of their own short-haul traffic at the same time as they try to prevent by every means in their power any development however small and however much desired by passengers and airline interests in long-haul operations from Glasgow.
If it is in the passenger's interests to leave from or arrive at Preswick for short-haul flights, Glasgow says that they should be allowed to do so. On the other hand, Glasgow sees no reason why the same ruling should not be applied to those long-haul passengers who prefer to leave from or arrive at Glasgow.
What is fair and right for Prestwick must surely be fair and right for Glasgow. It is significant that the application of the agreement has been entirely for the benefit of Prestwick so far. Now that Glasgow with a longer runway in prospect may be about to enjoy those same rights the British Airports Authority object long and strong. It is significant too that the only previous formal objection ever made and sustained was lodged by the Authority against Air Canada's operations to Glasgow in 1968. Recently the Scottish Council drew the attention of the Secretary of State to the slow growth of direct continental services from Scotland. Many reasons are advanced for this slow growth, but beyond any doubt the most important one is the segregation of air traffic by designating which type shall use which airport. This policy is strangling the growth of direct services.
It is worth noting that at Copenhagen and Amsterdam smaller indigenous populations enjoy a much higher level of air traffic services than we do in Scotland because of their sensible policy of mixing long, short and medium haul flights. It is beyond doubt that interlining creates additional demands and provides a far better level of service for local users.
The policy of B.A.A. is currently bantling this sort of growth in central Scotland, even though the opportunity exists at Glasgow and Prestwick Airports for a great leap forward in air traffic services, provided that there is a good mixing of traffic at both airports.
For example, the costly Highlands and Islands services would receive a life-giving injection of tourists from abroad if the policy I am advocating could be introduced, and there is no real reason why it should not be.
Glasgow can play its part. With its new 320-bedroom hotel due to open at the end of this year, and with a suitable runway extension, combined with a sensible air services policy, we would be able to generate from central Scotland the level of air services so necessary to sustain the industrial development now taking place and so urgently needed to promote the vital traffic, both business and tourist, to those remoter parts of Scotland still in need of better air communications.
I must strongly urge the Secretary of State to review the present unsatisfactory situation created by this existing one-sided arrangement.
It must be noted that B.A.A. is seeking to limit the extension of Glasgow's runway to a total length of 8,020 ft. Glasgow's extension request is for 1,400 ft. to give a total of 8,400 ft. Prestwick has 9,800 ft. The runway at Manchester's Municipal Airport is 9,400 ft.
Glasgow's original intention, to meet future needs, was to extend to 9,500 ft., but the former Secretary of State laid down the figure of 8,400 ft. when approving the infill programme. This is why the airport authorities at Glasgow were more than surprised when he then declared that a public inquiry was necessary.
During earlier discussions B.A.A. considered that 8.500 ft. was not unreasonable for Glasgow's Airport and the Chairman of Prestwick Airport Consultative Committee said on 28th May 1968 that
a runway beyond 8,500 ft. would be a waste of natural resources".
This seemed to imply that 8,500 ft. was a reasonable length, and it is worth noting that in the negotiations about the length for the runway at Turnhouse recently the Authority suggested 8,400 ft. as the new length for Turnhouse. It was only as a result of financial discussions as to who should pay the cost that a more modest requirement was accepted by B.A.A. in keeping with Edinburgh's requirements.
Irrespective, however, of commercial or political arguments, the overriding factor must always be safety, and the London group seeks to impose on Scottish-operated airports standards below those which are enjoyed at its own airports. For example, in the case of Glasgow's extension B.A.A. seeks to relate the total runway length against the Trident II landing requirements exactly. That is one of the reasons why Glasgow is lodging this objection. It does not allow for the Trident III which will be available this coming winter. It makes no provision for an increase in national or international safety requirements, and it allows no provision for the airbus that B.E.A. expects to have in two or three

years' time. No forward looking airport authority could be so short-sighted or foolish as to construct a runway extension tailored exactly to the requirements of one specific aircraft, but that is precisely what the British Airports Authority is seeking to impose on Glasgow.
It must be noted that while B.A.A. is advocating those dangerous provisions for Glasgow Airport it is proposing to build a third London airport, it is extending the runway at Gatwick, and it is seeking to lengthen even further its under-utilised runway at Prestwick. It is not, as far as I can see, constructing them to meet the specific requirements of just one current aircraft, but is providing a composite length based on calculated future requirements. This is precisely what Glasgow wants to do and it is just as precisely what the British Airports Authority is saying now that Glasgow should not be allowed to do. That we are resisting.
I should like to ask the Minister to inquire into the validity of the objections which B.A.A. is offering to the expansion of Glasgow's main runway. As I have pointed out, it has not been normal practice in Britain for one airport to lodge objections to improvements which another airport regards as being necessary for the improvement of its services. As I have already indicated, there is only one recorded example of this, and the objection was not proceeded with. Since then, there has been no recurrence.
However, the case presented by B.A.A. appears in a worse light than the one which was abandoned, for the objection in this case is against what the complainant describes as airport policy in Scotland. And the complainant is based in London.
If an objection based on London is tenable, there is nothing to prevent one from Northern Ireland, from the Channel Islands or some other outlandish part of United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister will consider carefully the potential trouble which is concealed in this attitude of the British Airports Authority. These matters are far more sensibly dealt with among the operators themselves than they will be by transferring them to the jurisdiction of Parliament, but, of course, the argument now taking place is really concerned with the fact that, so far, Parliament has not defined the secondary


rôle of the airport. If and when Glasgow airport is extended to 8,400 ft. and is operating the larger types of aircraft, it will be unjust to try to bar it from a secondary rôle such as Manchester has, which, like Abbotsinch, is also a municipal airport.
There is much I could add on this topic. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who has come here to represent the Secretary of State for Scotland, will be fully able to deal with these matters affecting the planning of airport preparation in Scotland. Naturally, since this is primarily a matter under the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland, I assume that the President of the Board of Trade, who has been very helpful to Abbotsinch all during this trouble, will continue to be as helpful in the months ahead until we have the planning dispute settled.
I hope that, when it is settled, the Government will see that no difficulties are placed in the way of developing what is one of the best positioned airports in the United Kingdom to its fullest extent. The length it wants for extension is necessary for its success. Its position so near to a great city, with a background possessed by no other airport in Scotland, must not be affected deleteriously. Yesterday, I wished the hon. Gentleman all success. I hope that he will make as part of his success a decision to see that Glasgow's airport is allowed to expand in a way worthy of a great city.

1.14 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Frederick Corfield): I thank the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) for giving me some idea of the points which he intended to raise. I did not think that we should have quite such a comprehensive review as we have had, and, in that connection, perhaps I might now express the apologies of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who, unfortunately, is unavoidably detained and cannot be with me here as he had hoped to be.
I cannot claim—it would be wrong for me to do so—that I am here to represent the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am here to speak on behalf of my own Department, the Board of Trade. In this respect, our responsibilities are for general matters in relation to airports

and their functioning, within defined limits, and not for the town and country planning aspects or amenity aspects, which in Scotland are the responsibility of the Secretary of State and in England and Wales the responsibilities of the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Wales. I must make clear at the outset that planning functions are entirely within the purview of my right hon. Friends.
As I understand it, there would have been no objection to Glasgow Corporation putting in its original planning application for the infilling of this land and for the extension of the runway which it desired as a single application, which would have meant a single planning inquiry or a single hearing or consideration by my right hon. Friend, whichever procedure was adopted, and would itself have saved time. But, however that may be, the actual time taken to call these applications in by my right hon. Friend—in fact, by his predecessor in the previous Government—is not something on which I can comment, though from my knowledge of these matters in a previous incarnation, I did not think that it was excessive to take a little over a month between the middle of November and the middle of January, bearing in mind that Christmas and, more important, perhaps, in Scotland, the New Year come in between. I should have thought approximately four weeks of working days at the most not bad, judging by the way these things go.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. Gentleman will realise that that is only part of the difficulty. The preliminary application for the infill took over 10 months.

Mr. Corfield: It was not even the same Government. That was the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a supporter. I never intimated any strong support for that Government myself, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can blame me, let alone my right hon. Friend, for that.
Coming to the closely connected matter of noise, I was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that passenger preference must be paramount. On all the evidence before us, certainly in this country—one has only to read the correspondence columns of The Times, let alone any of the more technical journals—people are


becoming immensely, and understandably, sensitive to noise. Therefore we can no longer regard these as matters to be decided solely in the interests of civil aviation and those who travel by it, but we must take careful account of the effects upon amenity of these airports and the operations emanating from them. That, of course, is a planning matter and will, no doubt, be considered at the planning inquiry which, I understand, will take place in September this year.
I gathered that the hon. Gentleman's main concern was with what he would regard, I think, as the intereference of the British Airports Authority, which, as he constantly underlined, is based in London. Peraps it would not be unfair if I said, in a private capacity, that quite a lot of the money comes from London, too. But it is purely an accident, if that be the appropriate phrase, that Prestwick is one of our main United Kingdom international airports. In a sense, it is unfortunate that it is an immensely good airport and is situated in a place in which the pattern of traffic cannot, perhaps, make quite as much use of it as would be in the general interest of the country's airports as a whole if it could, and thus take some of the load away from the congested airports in the South.
But Prestwick and Glasgow are only 30 miles apart. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that a journey of 30 miles on a good railway line probably means that a large proportion of passengers in the catchment area of the two airports can probably get to Prestwick a good deal quicker than most Londoners can get to Heathrow. If we are to justify the existence of the two airports on economic grounds, that justification can be based only on the policy enunciated by a previous President of the Board of Trade. He made it clear that this could be justified only on the basis that the two airports would be regarded as entirely complementary. That must mean a degree of distinction between the types of aircraft to operate from them.
What is abundantly clear is that if Glasgow were to develop Abbotsinch to its maximum, perhaps running two runways up to 10,000 ft., which I know is not a matter before the planning inquiry, there would be a growth in the pressure

of a great deal of transatlantic and other international traffic to go that little bit nearer the city, which is presumably the destination, or at any rate the interim destination, because it is a centre of communications, instead of Prestwick. What I cannot contemplate as a Board of Trade Minister is Prestwick becoming a complete white elephant, which it might do, kept open solely for the diversions which might be necessary from time to time owing to its rather superior weather conditions.

Mr. Rankin: If the Minister is doubting the operating efficiency of Prestwick and Abbotsinch, why are his Government proceeding to re-create another airport nearer to Glasgow than Prestwick is, at Edinburgh?

Mr. Corfield: With due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I am not proceeding to do anything of the sort. There is an airport at Turnhouse. I have not got a map with me, but I would have thought that Turnhouse is substantially further from Prestwick than Abbotsinch is. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, the Edinburgh authorities are anxious for the British Airports Authority to take the Edinburgh airport over and run it on their behalf. It is only fair to make it absolutely clear on behalf of the British Airports Authority, its Chairman and staff, that this is most certainly not a question of empire-building by the Authority. It is a mutual arrangement which is taking a long time to come to fruition. I am not sure exactly what stage it has reached, but this is not a matter of concern in this debate.
The fact that the B.A.A. owns Prestwick—and it really does not matter whether its headquarters are in Timbuctoo or London—must give it an interest in what happens at Abbotsinch. If Abbotsinch is to be developed to the full international standards to take the full range of long-haul aircraft, it will be very difficult either to avoid an enormous annual subsidy to keep both airports going or to justify the continuation of two airports in such close geographical proximity. Therefore, in so far as I have had time to study the matter, I support the policy laid down by the previous President of the Board of Trade that there must be a degree of definition as to which types of traffic use the two


airports. If we accept that as the basis, it must follow that the B.A.A. has a perfectly legitimate interest in expressing its views on developments at Abbotsinch which may have an effect on the dividing line between the types of traffic for which the two airports are predominantly designed and predominantly cater.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned, more in passing than as a main point, the question of generating inter-line traffic and so on in Scotland. I would be the first to agree with him that the basis of much regional development policy must be good communications. But I am sure that he will agree on reflection that this is like the traditional problem of which comes first, the chicken or the egg.
There is a limit to the extent to which even the State with all its finances, which people think to be limitless but which we know are not, can produce air traffic facilities in the hopes that people will use them. There must be a matching of supply and demand. I have no evidence that there is a substantial unfilled economic demand for further large-scale international air services, let alone intercontinental, from the lowlands of Scotland. But, if there are, it is up to the local people to express that demand. I have very little doubt that B.O.A.C., B.E.A. and the independent airlines interested in scheduled services will be very quick to make an application to the Air Transport Licensing Board, which is the responsible authority in this respect and over which the Government, from a day-to-day point of view, have only very limited influence.
Finally, I must make a comment on the question of safety. It is not fair to say that the B.A.A. is trying to inflict upon Abbotsinch Airport or any other airport a lower standard of safety than is appropriate or is available at the airports in England. It is purely an argument as to which category of traffic the two airports are to cater for, and what is broadly the definition and the facilities required for the two types. I am the first to admit that this is a matter open to some argument, but it is an argument to be put forward at the planning inquiry, where the two views can be heard and supported in evidence and the people giving the evidence can be cross-examined and so on. An argu

ment as to whether a runway should be 8,200 ft. or 8,400 ft. is not one that we can sensibly carry on across the Floor of the House with any hope of reaching a conclusion.
As to the expansion of Abbotsinch and the Board of Trade's sponsoring responsibility for the B.A.A., it must be realised that in addition to Prestwick the B.A.A. owns Heathrow, the busiest international airport in the world—situated many people would think in entirely the wrong place from the point of view of amenity, noise and so on, and Gatwick, which is becoming a very busy airport. Many of its personnel were looking after those airports before the transfer and have acquired a great deal of expertise. It is a little arrogant for people to say that it is interference if they express views that arise from that expertise.
I am the last person in the world to suggest that a nationalised airport should have priority over a municipalised airport for that reason alone, but as the Government we are responsible, and so is the House, for the expenditure of public money, and B.A.A. is a nationalised organisation and its funds are public money. If Scotland wishes to retain Prestwick, as no doubt it does, and no doubt it is in the interests of Scotland that it should, there must be a reasonable degree of differentiation to give it a chance to remain a reasonably viable proposition.

Mr. Rankin: In view of what the hon. Gentleman is saying and the thoughts which he has expressed about the various airports in Scotland and the way in which they are functioning, would he give some thought to the creation of a Scottish airports authority, whose existence would help to iron out many of the difficulties which now exist and which would give a coherence which the airport business in Scotland now lacks?

Mr. Corfield: That is a suggestion which is frequently voiced. Long before I moved from the Opposition side to the Government side of the House, this was a matter to which I have given consideration. But the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to announce Government policy on it in a debate of this sort and after so short a time in office. He must realise that, although there are arguments


for it, that in itself would not solve the problem of the two airports so close to each other which we want to keep complementary, but which could so easily become so competitive as to drive one into a completely unviable situation. The fact that there was a Scottish airports authority in charge of airports would not resolve that difficulty noticeably more easily.
The corollary of a Scottish airports authority is the loss from the ownership of Glasgow Corporation, from the municipality, of the airport to such an authority. I leave it to the hon. Member to decide whether he thinks that that is desirable and that it is a price which Glasgow would wish to pay. It is an aspect which would have to be considered if the matter were carried further. I am prepared to keep an open mind on it.
I am not unsympathetic to the demands for the best possible facilities for Scottish aviation, nor to the plea that improvements of communications of whatever type could well be a valuable aid if not the key to regional development, but it must be within art overall pattern which makes sense in the expenditure of national resources. I know that the hon. Member is no nationalist and "national resources" must mean the resources of the United Kingdom as a whole as well as local resources. If the resources are localised, how the functions of Prestwick and Abbotsinch can be kept complementary becomes even more questionable. It becomes even more difficult to avoid the sort of rivalry which the hon. Gentleman has spoken of and which I much regret. It is wrong to talk in terms of the B.A.A. trying to prevent the expansion of Abbotsinch in view of its obvious responsibilities and its responsibilities to the House for an airport which the hon. Gentleman will agree is of great value to Scotland and which we want to remain of great value to Scotland.

POLICE (SERVICE AND CONDITIONS)

1.35 p.m.

Mr. Martin McLaren: In the recent election campaign, one of the issues which was much discussed was that of law and order. Many candidates on both sides of the House felt that the most sensible thing to say was that we should back up the police In my election address I said:
We should give every support to the police to ensure the safety of the community.
In the Conservative Manifesto we said:
The best deterrent to crime is the likelihood of being caught. We will strengthen the police.
Having said those things at the election, it would not be right after the election if we were to forget all about them.
Another reason why I have sought the opportunity to raise this matter is that I have received several convincing letters from policemen in my constituency telling me that all was not well. Needless to say, nothing I shall say this afternoon implies any criticism of the Government, who have been in office for only just over one month. Nor is this really a party issue, except to the extent that it was a pity that the Labour Government thought it necessary to restrict police recruitment at a critical time and refused to allow undermanning allowances in some of our major cities.
When we say that we support the police, we mean partly that we respect and admire the work they do for the community. In a recent public opinion poll, one of the questions was:
Are the police to be admired a great deal?
and 86 per cent. of the people who were asked that question replied, "Yes". In the House we appreciate all that they do for us and we regard them as our friends. Supporting the police also means that we should help them in their work and not hinder them, as a good many people are apt to do. For Members of Parliament, supporting the police means that we should not forget to see whether the conditions in which we expect them to serve are satisfactory.
The central problem of the police today is the rapidly increasing work load and that there are not enough men to


carry it out and that there is a steadily diminishing real reward for the extra effort required from the service. May I examine each of these ideas in turn? Some of the paradoxes in our society are that we have more affluence and yet more violence, more education and yet less responsibility, less poverty and yet more dissatisfaction. There is a rising crime wave with which the police have to contend, and crime takes new forms. There is, for example, the fashion of theft of antique silver and pictures. There is the under-current of lawlessness which shows itself in some of the riots and demonstrations which we have witnessed. Indeed, we had an example here only yesterday. I remind the House that in the Grosvenor Square incident no fewer than 145 police officers were injured. There are the football fans who wreck the trains, the squatters who sit in other people's property, the student disorders, and the skinheads. All these matters involve more work for the police, often of an arduous and disagreeable kind.
These are not the only pressures. There is more road traffic, so there is more work involved in keeping it moving and keeping it safe. There is the work of dealing with abandoned cars and taking particulars of accidents and supplying them to insurance compaines. There are the modern Construction and Use Regulations which impose new duties on the police—for example, inspecting the tyres of vehicles to see whether they are worn. To some extent the recruitment of traffic wardens has helped and so has the extension of fixed penalty offences. But it is still true that the uniformed branch must devote about half its time to traffic management.
There is a spate of new legislation, for which we must bear the responsibility, that imposes additional stresses on the police just as it does on the Civil Service. Examples are easy to find. There is, for instance, the new Firearms Act, which requires that owners of sporting shotguns now have to be licensed by the police. There is the burdensome work in connection with betting, gaming and clubs. Indeed, the police are the maids of all work. They have to enforce livestock movement orders. They have to check on aliens and au pair girls. The size of that task is illustrated when we realise that there are no fewer than 100,000

resident aliens in the Metropolitan police district. In areas where there are many immigrants the police do valuable work with their Liaison Councils. The police have to deal with lost property and stray dogs. They have to enforce local authority warrants for school truancy. There are the drug offences, which largely constitute a new sphere.
All this work is increasing every year. The question is: who is there to do it? The answer is that there are too few people.
The Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary shows that on 31st December last there were well over 10,000 police officers below establishment. The C.I.D. section of the police is carrying a case load too heavy for efficiency with too much overtime being worked. In the uniformed branch, there are large towns with populations of over 100,000 where the number of police out at night can be counted on one's fingers. The problem is that while the demands have multipled, police resources, especially in manpower, have failed to keep pace. The service is overstretched while its responsibilities have grown.
The income of police officers compared with other occupations has not kept pace. Semi-skilled occupations with trade union power behind them have gone ahead. This has led to wastage with the resignation of trained and experienced men, which is a serious problem. It is quite true that last year there was not a net decrease of male police. Indeed, there was an increase of over 600 men. But that does not detract from the disquiet that we should feel over the resignations, before pensionable age, of many trained and experienced men.
It is worth considering why these resignations occur. They are principally on account of pay. If a man sees that he can increase his income by changing his occupation, by moving to work where he is not under discipline and does not have to wear uniform, may not have to work at weekends or on shifts, does not have hours of duty which are liable to be altered at short notice, is no longer exposed to the risk of injury from criminals or rowdy youths, to danger in various kinds of physical emergency, or to unjustified and malicious complaints being levelled against him about his


work, it is only human if he considers whether he and his family might be happier if he were to change his job.
Let us not underestimate the influence of policemen's wives. They have to bear the brunt of many of the factors that I have mentioned. It is they who may question in the policeman's home whether the game is worth the candle.
One new factor about wastage which I should like to mention and which will soon be with us is that many men who joined the police service in 1946 when they came out of the forces after the war will next year have done their 25 years and will be entitled to retire on pension. I understand that there may be about 3,000 men in that category. Will they decided then to call it a day? Some of them undoubtedly will.
There is little question that pay is the principal factor. I will give one or two examples. In Bristol eight police officers from a single division asked to be allowed to work in off-duty hours as taxi drivers and security guards for private companies. They said that they needed to earn more money for their families. Police regulations do not allow outside work of this kind. When the chief constable had reluctantly to turn the applications down, a police officer with 14 years' service and take-home pay of still only £14 left the force for a job as a storeman. Another constable with 16 years' service in the Hampshire force quit to take a job driving a dust cart. He maintained that he was better off after he changed. Last year 45 men left the Bristol force before pensionable age.
I am sure the Minister will agree that it is not in the public interest that this kind of thing should happen. Experienced police officers have a fund of professional knowledge and judgment which simply cannot be replaced by finding new young recruits. That is the dilemma: there is increasing work and not enough police to do it. We all expect to be able to dial 999 and to have a policeman come promptly. However, if this trend goes on he will not be there to answer our call
The remedy is more men, and more men will not be obtained without higher pay. There has been an 8½ per cent. interim award back-dated to the beginning of this year, and a review is due to take place in September when the

police service will expect a fair and honourable settlement. I hope that the review will take account of the undoubted fact that current levels of pay have fallen below the standard recommended by the Willink Royal Commission. Better differentials are required among the higher ranks of the service. A chief superintendent receives only £25 more than a superintendent, the rank below. That is the gross figure. When allowance is made for taxation, the extra reward for the extra responsibility of being in command of 150 men is seen to be negligible.
Another grievance is that the detective duty allowance for overtime worked by detectives is paid at rates frequently as low as only half the basic rates of pay.
Coming to police organisation, we have just completed the force amalgamations. What is needed now is a breathing space to settle down. I agree that good progress has been made in the last few years in unit beat systems, panda cars and personal radios. There is perhaps room to apply organisation-and-management methods in police work. Too many police—I believe 500 in the Metropolitan Police district—are employed as court ushers. Time is spent waiting about in courts, executing civil warrants or maintaining school crossing patrols. There is a need for the police to be relieved of minor or time-wasting duties.
The paper work should be cut down, as Marks and Spencer did so successfully. We should develop more highly trained police leaders. The older type of officer, like Mr. Dixon of Dock Green, is on his way out. More graduates are required. Rather than have a graduate entry, it would be better if people with A levels started as constables and, after the completion of their probationary service when their value to the police had been established, they should be seconded to take university courses, which would avoid the internal jealousies always associated with the Trenchard scheme. We should try to establish a more professional status for the police giving them perhaps good monthly salaries instead of the present hourly or day rates.
To sum up, we are concerned with an honourable profession. I do not think that it is in any sense helpful to say that police morale is low. That was not the impression received by the Inspectorate as


given in its recently published report. The police maintain the Queen's peace and ensure that we and our families go about our ways in safety. It is still possible to walk about at night in London and other cities of this country in safety, which is not true of many cities abroad. In return, the police are entitled to expect us to give them conditions of service which are up to the improved standards of the 1970s, which will make them feel well satisfied and happy in their work and which will make them respected and looked up to by people in other walks of life.

1.55 p.m.

Mr. Robert Adley: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren). The police have one of the hardest tasks in our society in upholding what used to be known respectfully and what is now known perhaps slightly derogatorily as the British way of life. I have always felt that the unarmed police force which we have in this country, is one of the greatest assets of the British way of life.
I have been fortunate enough to travel abroad—for instance, I was nine times in the United States last year—and the more I do so the more I realise how great an asset is our unarmed police force. However, I know that many members of the police force have reservations about our ability indefinitely to maintain an unarmed police force. The Government must not only give backing but be seen to give backing to the police in the execution of their duties.
It is perhaps not coincidental that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West and myself received numerous letters before, during and following the election from many constituents who are policemen. One point made to me on numerous occasions was that the police cannot strike. This week, when we are faced with an emergency and a dock strike I have received three letters from police constituents pointing out that they are called upon to undertake the hardest of tasks in the knowledge that the people they may well have to protect, the dockers, are seeking wages very much higher than those which any policeman on the beat has any prospect of obtaining.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bris,

tol North-West mentioned the hours which the police have to work. I do not propose to dwell at length on this point. Being a policeman is a difficult and frequently unpleasant task—all hours, all weathers, and involving a great disruption of family life. Over the years I have seen in this place as a parliamentary candidate and now as a Member the great virtue of being able to sit in the Public Gallery at any time without there being any question of search or molestation by the authorities. Yesterday's occurrence merely serves to show what a great asset we have in the police and how essential it is that we should back up the police in carrying out their very difficult task. I realise that the relationship between the police and the officials of this House is perhaps a delicate subject, but I always greatly value the opportunity to listen to debates in the House at any time of day or night. Yesterday's occurrence serves to show how much must be done to ensure that our way of life is maintained.
Another letter which I received during the General Election campaign and which impressed me greatly came from a policeman who confessed to being a lifelong Socialist, but he voted this time for the Conservative Party because he felt that it recognises the problem of the maintenance of law and order as being one of the overriding social problems of this country. He wrote a moving letter saying that by voting for me he was looking to me to support him and his interests in Parliament. I hope that my remarks today will give him the feeling that I am doing my small part to justify the support which he has entrusted to me.
The police in the United States, Spain, France and many other countries are armed. When travelling abroad I am always struck by the different atmosphere which exists between the public and the police in those countries and the relationship between the two in Britain. Here we have a mutual respect between police and public which I have always considered to be a priceless asset.
In the last few years I have felt that there is some danger of this mutual respect being jeopardised. My hon. Friend did well to mention the numerous petty duties which our police are obliged to undertake, particularly those


relating to parking regulations and motoring restrictions.
Our police are fair. They are rarely, if ever, vindictive. They are tolerant and cheerful. We have much to be thankful for, but we pay our policemen little thanks. To give and not to count the cost, to toil and to ask for no reward, save that of knowing that they do their job to the best of their ability, seems to sum up the attitude of the majority of our policemen.
I support my hon. Friend in urging the Minister to ensure that there is parity of pay which will make the policeman feel that he is doing a worthwhile job and is getting a worthwhile reward. One of the greater misdeeds of the Labour Government was that rewards tended to be given to those best able to pressurise. Dockers and dustmen received high rewards quickly when they held the public to ransom.

Mr. Ray Carter: The hon. Gentleman is implying that the Tories are better friends of the police than the Socialists. Is he aware that in a Parliamentary Answer yesterday it was said that in 1960 there were 72,301 on the strength of police forces in England and Wales and that by 1970 the figure had risen to 93,707? Thus, despite his criticisms, the Labour Government obviously did well by the police. However, it should be remembered—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. Interventions must be brief.

Mr. Carter: I was trying to correct the impression which the hon. Gentleman had given that the Tory Party—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. An intervention must not become a speech. Will the hon. Gentleman either put his intervention briefly or resume his seat?

Mr. Carter: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that the Labour Government were highly successful in retaining the required strength of the Police Force, as well as the morale and well-being of the Force?

Mr. Adley: I would never seek to suggest that the Labour Government did other than their best. Unfortunately, one of the greatest indictments of the last

five years is that they failed, because of their policies, to generate sufficient growth in the economy to enable them to carry out many policies like maintaining the strength and morale of the police. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that I am saying that the Conservative Party is better able to do this job, then it is the police who have indicated to me recently that they believe that we might be better able to understand their problems and to appreciate the need to take steps to maintain law and order. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has done his research assiduously and diligently. I stand here with the benefit of having done only little research, save to try to put to the House the feelings of numerous of my constituents, many of whom are now serving in the police force.
I urge my right hon. Friend to be aware of the great value of the police in the maintenance of the British way of life and of the need to do everything we can to see that that essential mutual respect between the police and the public is maintained.

2.6 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren) on having initiated this debate. He may recall that I raised a similar subject in the last Parliament.
I am particularly concerned with some of the more onerous duties which the police are called upon to perform. I have a reputation, quite wrongly, for being against the police. Whenever I am in trouble or difficulties with the police they tend to be a little more fair in the other direction, against me, than they would normally be.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh? "]—Some minutes ago I made my way by car towards the Palace of Westminster. As I neared the gates of New Palace Yard the traffic lights were red against me, and, being a law-abiding citizen, I stopped and waited for them to change. While waiting there, another hon. Member, driving a Mini, came on my off-side, crossed the lights, although they were still red, and drove into New Palace Yard. He is a new hon. Member whose name I do not know, but he will know to whom I am referring. I obey the law while he does not, though I should be the first to be accused of breaking the law. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]
The motoring side of police activities is a complete anachronism these days. There is a shortage of policemen yet we ask them to perform tasks which, frankly, any woman, young student or old-age pensioner could do. I am referring to what is loosely termed the road traffic side of police work. It is about time that we had a supernumerary police force to deal with the less essential and inessential police activities which could be done by people other than policemen. Because of the present state of affairs, some of those concerned with road traffic duties have become officious and are taking action when it is not necessary. I will give a couple of illustrations—they can easily be verified—to show what I mean.
Not long ago a man in the vending machine business parked his car at the side of the road by a bank with the idea of changing the coins that he had removed from the machines. This was not in the West End or City of London but well out of town. He was parked on a wide road and there was no possibility of his car causing congestion. He was loaded down with coins and therefore wanted to park near the bank. This he did, and he went into the bank with his coins. He transacted his business within three minutes, but when he returned to his car he found a parking ticket on the windscreen and later received an automatic fine. When he tried to discuss the matter outside the bank with the police constable who had given him the ticket, the constable would not even listen to him.
Another case concerned a motor car which carried two exemption tickets for parking and a war disablement badge. The driver explained to the policeman why he had parked, again for about three minutes, but the constable would not listen. Indeed, he would take no notice whatever of the man's remonstrations. Likewise, he received an automatic fine. The coin-vending machine man was told, "Go away down the road." He said, "How can I with loads of coins?" The constable was quite vicious and offhand and said that the man had to go down the road. Immediately following that incident a Securicor van was parked for 15 minutes, and not a thing was done about it.
As they say in the legal profession, not only must justice be done but it must be obviously seen to be done, and the same must apply to the police. As hon. Members who were in the last Parliament know, I have been running a campaign against the deplorable situation of unlicensed vehicles on the roads, and not only unlicensed but without certificates of roadworthiness, and, very often, without insurance. I have made approaches to the police about this, but the police do not want to know. I can assure the House that there are dozens of policemen who are guilty of this offence.
Only last week I had two occasions to go to policemen about this sort of thing. One incident was in the Clerkenwell Road, outside Clerkenwell police station. I saw a car parked on a yellow band. I saw a policeman and I said to him, "Excuse me, officer, but can you explain why it is that a car can be parked there?" He replied, "It is probably a policeman's." I said, "Still he has got no right to park his private car on a yellow band." I had a look, and there was no road fund certificate. I said to the policeman, "By the way, there is no road fund licence," and he still replied, "It is probably a policeman's." We looked in and saw a policeman's helmet. I said, "Even if he is a policeman he still has no right either to be there or not to have a mad fund licence. Are you going to do nothing about it?" "Oh, no," he said. He was quite reluctant to take any action.
That is one case. I have had reported to me from south London dozens of such cases, and I have had reported to me some cases within a stone's throw of this House. Policemen should be the last people to commit such an offence. I have reported such cases to the police and they are on record. There is one at Wood Green and there are four or five at Hornsey. I suggest that the police should be seen to be enforcing these laws even against themselves.
As I say, what I should like to see is a supernumerary police force. It could be formed. It could be formed not so much for officious enforcement but on the basis of discussion and explanation, and by men who would go round and explain to the public and assist, and women particularly could help.
Women traffic wardens are doing a good job in the centre of London, and invariably they get a good response from motorists. There is a case which is probably sub judice; it occurred recently in Berkeley Square and I sent details to the Minister and they are being investigated. But I have found that the women traffic wardens seem to be doing better than the police. I have many friends among the police and they tell me that this may be so because they themselves are fed up with the job of traffic duties. They do not like it. They say they are fed up with it; they have to make reports about these things and they do not want to make these reports and they do not want to do that sort of job.
In setting up a strong police force for anti-criminal activities, a force of fit men, the younger men, with high pay, it would help if we had a supernumerary force of older men and also of women to do some of the other police work such as the traffic duties. Policemen, instead of retiring, as they do at a relatively early age, would not retire but would switch over to what I would term the guard service and the supernumerary activities, and they would do so instead, as now happens with most of them, of their going to firms like Securicor and other guard firms. They could form the nucleus of a force for guiding, patrolling, school patrols, school children's road crossings.
And they could go out on the beat, the ordinary old beat. I do not know what is the experience of other hon. Members, but I have yet to see more than once in a blue moon a policeman on the beat. When I was a youngster there were always policemen walking around, and I had to dodge them. Now one has to look for them. Some of the older policemen would be quite willing to do that work and it would be helpful if they would.
One of the tragedies of the modern age, particularly in industrial areas such as I represent, West Ham, is the vandalism which goes on. There are the telephone vandals, for instance. A lot of that vandalism would be stopped by just the sight of a policeman in the area. As it is, one can hardly find a telephone box which is not damaged or smashed so that one cannot make a telephone call out of doors.
The supernumerary police force could do an amazing job in helping and advising. I would go further and have them as an advisory force on the beat. I would have them in police boxes—there is a police box in Trafalgar Square—where they could give advice to the general public and help in many ways. It would be excellent to have an old police sergeant sitting in a little box in a busy area where there are people always coming along and wanting help and advice, and he could tell them, for instance, where is the nearest hospital, where is the nearest doctor, where are the nearest first-aid facilities, and so on. He would be a great help in emergencies.
It could be done. It would be cheaper and easier than having a large, expensive police force doing everything. If it were done, people would be happier, and it would help to combat the growing crime figures of which we have recently read in the Commissioner's Report reported in the Press.
I am accused of being anti-police. I hope that I shall lose that title. It is not a title that I like. Perhaps I have got it because I have come forward from time to time with constructive criticisms—but constructive criticisms not only of the police. I can assure them that I constructively criticise my own Front Bench, whether in Opposition or Government, and that I make constructive criticisms of the former Prime Minister or of the present Prime Minister, because I think that that is my job. I come here on behalf of my constituents, and if my constituents want to criticise, then I am entitled to express their criticisms, whether they are of policemen or of Ministers. If the criticisms are investigated and found to be unjustified, they can be withdrawn. Hon. Members who have been here some time know that if I am shown to be wrong I am the first to admit it; I withdraw; I sit down gracefully. That is what I do now, thanking you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make this little, short speech.

2.19 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: The House is greatly indebted to my two hon. Friends from Bristol for raising this matter on this occasion. My hon. Friend and former colleague the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren) spoke as he always does,


when he elects to speak, having studied his subject in some depth, and he coloured it with a broad brush with accuracy and perception. The people of Bristol are fortunate in having him bask here to represent them once again. His colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley), pursued the matter and took up the same strain. He evidently had been approached about this matter and had recognised the deep feeling there is in this country at the present time about the service and conditions of the present police force.
To the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) I would say, "Methinks he doth protest too much at his reputation." If, perchance, he claims that thousands of police officers do not have road fund licences—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I said dozens.

Mr. Rees-Davies: —and if the hon. Gentleman gives examples of those which he has reported, that is perhaps not the best way of pleasing the police in a debate in which they hope that the hon. Gentleman will be speaking about how their terms and conditions might be improved. I do not criticise him, but that may be one reason why he holds the reputation he does, not altogether without justification.
I specialise in this subject and have made a deep study of it for 10 or 12 years. As is well known to many members of my party, and apparently even to the Prime Minister, I wrote a book on this subject to which the Lord Chancellor wrote a foreword. The subject and the views which I air on it are of course controversial, which, as the Lord Chancellor pointed out, is inevitable if one is to discuss the matter fairly and evoke the right response in the police force and in the community generally.
We are fortunate this afternoon in that we reached this debate early and have a certain amount of time open to us. For that reason and no other I propose to spend a few minutes in developing what I believe are the essential factors to the success of the battle against crime in Britain today. If that battle is to succeed, first, the police force must be content with their conditions of work, secondly, policemen must be able to feel that they are giving satisfactory service to the community—rather like men in the

forces, they like to feel that they are doing that service—and thirdly, we must be able to attract into the police force men and women of ideals. This involves an immediate review of the structure, terms of service and conditions of the police force, and I ask the Home Secretary immediately to undertake such a review. This is a vital and immediate need.
The reason why some of us are particularly closely associated with the problems of the police, serious crime and the question of freedom under the law is that the Government took over a state of affairs in Ulster on which it would be unfair to press the Home Secretary for any immediate answers to the problems we are discussing today and an urgent problem of immigration, and now there is a dock strike. The tackling of crime is almost as urgent as any of these matters.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East was speaking, an hon. Gentleman opposite pointed out that between 1960 and 1970 the police force had increased from approximately 72,000 to 92,000 personnel. That is perfectly true, as was said in a Written Answer to which reference was made. However, in 1960 there were about 500,000 indictable offences in Britain, whereas in 1970 there were well over 1 million. If there is a rise in the police force personnel of, say, 15 per cent. in ten years, and at the same time serious crime more than doubles, apart from the number of small offences which has also doubled, when we pass new gaming and licensing laws which have to be dealt with by the police, it is undeniable that the Metropolitan Police needs at least 5,000 more men to bring it up to something approaching strength. I do not accept that the figures laid down by the inspectorate are right, even then.
The criminal investigation force of the Metropolitan Police as at December, 1968 consisted of about 3,100 men. That is ludicrous. Many detectives working in the Metropolitan Police Force are expected to solve 8 or 9 crimes at one and the same time. The conditions in the Metropolitan Police are far worse than in the county constabularies, and I want to deal first with the question of what can be done immediately to help the conditions of the police force.
Many policemen are dedicated men, and although it is usually said that pay


is the main criterion, this is not true. I know and have spoken to a great many detectives, and many policemen in the county forces and elsewhere over the years, and they have all told me that their conditions of work are equally important.
Let us look at those conditions. It is extremely difficult in many areas, particularly in London, for the police to get suitable housing close to their work, and practically no special conditions are applicable, except in a few local county areas.
Men engaged in criminal investigation work, whether in London or elsewhere, get few week-ends off. Most of us have nothing to do from Saturday morning until Sunday night. Almost all detectives, particularly in London, are burdened with a great deal of hard work over the weekend. Furthermore, they may be burdened with sudden extra duties, such as arise in the Isle of Thanet where not infrequently local forces are called out to deal with disturbances in Margate and Ramsgate.
In addition, the preparation of reports causes difficulty. A detective frequently gets irritated by the inspectorate insisting on having the reports done in precisely the way it wants and friction develops. I came across a case recently in Essex where there were 14 men in the C.I.D. branch and two typists, neither of whom knew shorthand. I asked one of the detectives how he would do his report, and he replied that he knew a policewoman who did shorthand. He said that the others did not know that she could do shorthand, but he took her out for lunch and she assisted him in the preparation of his reports.
The police are entitled to the same secretarial assistance and conditions as are found in an ordinary commercial office. Furthermore, they are without the modern aids which those engaged in detection should have. The police in London have practically no tape recorders. A tape recorder would be of the greatest value because it could be taken to the scene of the crime and the detective could record every detail of the crime and afterwards take a record of anything that is said. Evidence so recorded would be far better than the verbal evidence which is merely noted

down afterwards and is often challenged later by the person who is arrested.
Whether in terms of length of work, home conditions, secretarial assistance, reports, the removal of antagonisms that arise between the constabulary on the one hand and the detective force on the other, they need to be brought up to the standards that now exist in commerce and industry. Case loads must be looked at. That is the way in which to begin to tackle the first part of the problem of recruitment.
There are two totally different types of policeman. There is the type that my hon. Friend and I know particularly well—they were in the Welsh Guards with us, they were the men that I remember commanding overseas. My hon. Friend was more senior than I. He was a Regular whereas I was a war-time officer. These men came from the Welsh Guards. I had 42 Cardiff City policemen—supreme soldiers. Forty-one were very good policemen, but only one had the capacity to be a detective. I hope that we can get the police and the Police Federation to understand that we are not against them. We are trying to point out that to be a good detective requires a totally different character and mould than to be a good regimental policeman.
There is the type of man who gives great service in the House, or as a court usher—the type of man who looks after the ceremonials that take place in county and horse shows. There is the very good local policeman or bobby in the village who looks after the community and who knows Jack and Jill and knows who is likely to cause trouble and who is not. He is the type of person who is excellent in Grosvenor Square and in student demonstrations, or in dealing with Vietnamese objectors. But he is totally different from the Sherlock Holmes or Hercules Poirot type—the first-class investigators. These are often little men. For some reason little men are more likely to be better detectives than big men. They have keener noses. The person who will make a very good investigator is just not the same as the ordinary policeman.
I do not intend to be offensive when I say that the British police force, speaking generally, is amateur and not professional. Last year about eight graduates


entered the police force from university—only eight. We have three thousand detectives in London. That is only one part of the force. Many people would be attracted to a career in the police force if they thought that they could become detectives. They are not attracted to the idea of being mere policemen. I do not want to see the creation of a national police force, as suggested by the Lord Chief Justice. I believe that that sort of force would offend local susceptibilities. We want to maintain the corporate sense of our local community forces.
But serious crime knows no boundaries; it sweeps across Britain and the rest of the world. We want a new structure, and not merely regional crime squads, although they are doing admirable work. We want a centrally controlled, strategically directed force, under the Home Secretary. Such a force, operating from the centre, would have its various regional headquarters in the counties, who would help local forces. Whether or not we call this a national C.I.D. I care not. What is essential is that there shall be separate recruitment into our criminal investigation force.
If a person wants to be a detective and does not want to serve on the beat he should not be compelled to do so. This would involve a separate pay structure, separate allowances and separate pensions. It would not only enable graduates to enter; it would allow for a two-tier type of recruitment. It would enablemen to come in at middle age—specialists, such as accountants. It would enable the recruitment of specialists in forensic science to carry out research into crime. It would enable us to create what we really need—a highly organised body to fight organised crime.
It is astounding that although for many years I have called for these sort of squads, only now are we beginning to understand that criminals operate as specialists in their particular fields, just as hon. Members have their special fields. I speak on tourism, and home affairs; other hon. Members speak on economics. Likewise, we must accept that the same situation exists in regard to the police force. The bullion criminal steals bullion, silver or gold, while the jewel thief specialises in jewels. Despite the fact that I have been shouting for it for many

years—and I have been shouting very loudly recently—there is no proper silver squad in the police force. There is no record of antique Georgian silver or of modern silver, although it is being stolen in ever-increasing quantities. There is no central computer, which would enable all the necessary information to be centralised, so that property can not only be recovered later through market channels, but also so that the extent of a theft can be realised.
A fine arts squad has been set up. The Fraud Squad is hopelessly under-manned. It has no senior businessmen. It lacks a sufficient number of men with business acumen. They must be brought in from outside. We must not allow inspectors of constabulary and others to stand in the way of this sort of recruitment if we want to defeat crime. Then there is the admirable branch that deals with forgery. It is admirable, because it is under the United Nations. There is an obligation to have an international force. The odds are two to one against catching a forger, but they are eight to one against catching a robber.
Those are a few of my ideas. This is an immensely wide subject. It is fortunate that I have had the chance of being discursive. It will not be easy for us to obtain the right conditions which will provide a contented police force. We cannot easily obtain the proper recruitment—not merely among the young but among the older people. We must provide attractive conditions of service. If we could have another 2,000 good men and a few women in the C.I.D. force of the Metropolitan Police we should be able to halve the crime rate in three years. But there must be an intelligence service. There must be an increase in the number of men who can work under cover and move amongst criminals. In the war years, we had a Ministry of Economic Warfare, which was led by the right hon. Member for Coventry. East (Mr. Crossman). Its job was to sow dissension amongst the enemy. It should be the task of a criminal investigation section to move amongst criminals and do the same so that, when money is stolen, instead of saying that the haul has been £1 millon an undercover police officer suggests that it was £2 million, implying that another member of the gang got away with the extra £1 million. Then


the officer might say, "Well, George, you were not selected to go on that robbery because Harry does not like you. He thinks that you are incompetent". Then he might say to another, "George went off with your girl Anne last night".
Anyone who thinks that it is possible to "play it cool" when dealing with the criminals of the underworld today, which is the attitude of many people, is quite wrong. It is essential to know who they are and the type of crime which is to be committed. One of the most important tasks of the police today is to catch villians before they commit crimes. An outstanding example was the Kray brothers, and the police are entitled to point to the arrest of the Krays and the Richardsons as two of their successes. I am delighted that they succeeded, and more strength to their elbows in the future. But what is wrong today in Britain is that we are not prepared to look upon our police as professionals, so that serious crime is tackled at the roots by setting up the right type of professional structure. It is that for which I call.
I very much like the expression, "Protection under the law" which has been used by our present Home Secretary. However, if the police are to be assisted in dealing with the squatters, the vandals at Margate and other seaside areas, the people who destroy telephone booths and those who create trouble as militant minorities in our squares or among students, the police must be given the opportunity to see that when such people are caught they are dealt with effectively. If the effective treatment is not to be applied to that part of the anatomy which was used to it in the past—and I do not call for a return to that—they must be kicked in the pocket. The police must be supported by financial penalties which are certain to be recovered in such cases. They must also be supported by a wider measure of recruitment and receive what they believe to be the support of the courts. Most of all, they must have public support. It is in that respect that I am sure that, in due course, my right hon. Friend will set up a means by which both public grievances and police grievances can be understood, one way or the other, so that we create conditions in which there are appeals both by radio

and television asking the public to support the police.
When my right hon. Friend has a little time, after dealing with immigration and other pressing problems, I hope that he will be able to set up a new structure for our police. As soon as he is able to do so, I am sure that he will treat it as a matter of urgency.

2.44 p.m.

Mrs. Connie Monks: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Lady seeking to address the House?

Mrs. Monks: Mr. Speaker, I would like your advice. I have not yet made my maiden speech, but I am wondering whether I might be allowed to intervene in this debate.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady can. It will count as her maiden speech.

Mrs. Monks: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have the honour to represent Chorley, in Lancashire, which covers an area of 80 square miles. The constituency comprises Chorley borough, Chorley rural district, and the three urban districts of Leyland, Adlington and Withnell. We are served by the Lancashire Constabulary, which is well known for its very high standards.
Before I was elected to this House the constituency was well served by Mr. Clifford Kenyon, who was a member of the party opposite. He served the constituency well for 25 years, but it would be quite wrong for me to suggest that I was not very happy to take his place, though on the benches on this side of the House.
As a magistrate, I have great respect for the police and the way in which they carry out their duties. However, as I was going about talking to people during the election campaign, I found many signs of discontent amongst the police.
I met one man who was running a small business. Formerly, he had been a policeman. I asked him why he had retired from the police and gone into his small business. He told me that when he and his wife were first married they were very happy. Members of the Lancashire Constabulary are provided with houses, so that they had to nut down no lump sum for a house. With a house


provided and his wife continuing to work, their income was such that they were able to provide their house with all the comforts that they required. However, with the arrival of their first child, his wife gave up her job and their financial difficulties began. He told me that when he had drawn £250 from his savings in the first year he realised that the situation could not continue. He resigned from the police and with the remainder of his savings he bought a business. That was a good policeman lost to the force.
Another instance which I came across during the election campaign concerned more senior police officers. They are extremely concerned about what they consider to be a threat to their pension rights. It has always been considered by the police as one of their "perks" that a man can retire early, get a pension, and then find a light job when he is past his peak of physical fitness. The proposed new pension schemes threaten this practice, and many senior police officers are seriously considering resigning and going into other jobs while they can still retain their pension rights.
We as a nation depend on our police for the life that we have. Yesterday's incident in the House reminds us that if we are to maintain law and order it must be based on full confidence in our police. If our police forces are to be kept at full strength, we must see to it that they are provided with the facilities which other professions have. They must continue to have our whole-hearted support. It is because I feel so strongly about this that I have been moved to make my maiden speech on this subject.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It helps Mr. Speaker, who is not a thought reader, to know when an hon. Member wishes to make a maiden speech. The hon. Lady has just made a charming maiden speech. I did not know that it was coming.

Mrs. Monks: Mr. Speaker, I must apologise. I had no intention of making my maiden speech when I entered the Chamber today.

2.51 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples): By leave of the House I will seek to reply to the debate. We have listened, unexpectedly, to a maiden speech from the hon. Lady the Member for Chorley (Mrs. Monks). The

House will be impressed by her sincerity and the thoughtfulness of what she said. I am sure that the police, particularly those in her constituency, will appreciate the interest she takes in their work and will be grateful to her. I hope that we shall hear more of her on other occasions when I am sure the House will listen to her with great interest, if she speaks with the same sincerity as she did today.
Before turning to the main debate, perhaps I might refer to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). As the House knows, he has given a considerable amount of thought to this question. Many of us have seen the pamphlet he wrote entitled, "Conquest of Crime", in which he proposed a major review and restructuring of the police force. In his pamphlet, and this afternoon, he put forward important ideas to which I am sure he will not expect me to reply off the cuff. My right hon. Friend and I have only had a short time to consider these matters particularly in view of the other preoccupations, Northern Ireland, the dock strike and so on which have kept us occupied in the past few weeks. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall give careful consideration to the issues he has raised.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren) on raising this subject. Although in some ways his speech was technically a maiden spech it was one we had heard before. We are delighted to see him back in this Housing taking part in our activities and I am sure that all hon. Members would congratulate him upon his return and for the manner in which he delivered his speech. He referred to questions of rising crime, the growth of violence and the growth of forms of crime involving technical and sophisticated techniques. Bristol police forces must take a great deal of comfort from the fact that two hon. Members representing the city have been here today to speak on their behalf.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) also referred to the rise in crime and to the difficult problems of the police because of the changing character of crime. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West said, the main deterrent is the likelihood of a criminal being caught and the


means of catching a criminal is a strong and efficient police force
I welcome the opportunity of debating the strength and well-being of the police because it is a subject to which the Government afford a very high priority. This is a wide subject and my hon. Friend was kind enough to give an indication of the points he proposed to deal with. I will have something to say about police manpower and pay and some of the points made by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary in his recent report as well as trying to deal with some of the points raised in the debate by other hon. Members.
The police force is our first line of defence against crime and as a Government we are committed to enabling the country to have a service which is strong and effective, strong in terms of numbers, equipment, methods, powers and by no means least of all, in terms of public support. There was a slowing down in the rate of growth in police forces after devaluation. Although we are still well below the authorised establishment I am glad to say that the strength of the forces generally is picking up. The net increase in the strength of the police in England and Wales of nearly 1,000 in the first five months of this year is about equal to the whole of the increase last year, and this is encouraging.
It is not merely a matter of adding men to the strength of the police force. We have to make sure that we retain in the force those experienced men who are of the greatest value. The job has to be made worthwhile, not only in terms of cash but in terms of conditions of service too, so that the experienced men remain in the force. We must prevent trained men wasting their talents on civilian jobs in the service or outside. They must have up-to-date equipment. The forces vary a lot and there is still more scope for the use of civilians including traffic wardens, to release police officers for operational duties which only they can do. Yesterday my right hon. Friend laid an Order considerably increasing the powers of traffic wardens. The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) referred to this. When he has studied this Order he will see that it is a move in a direction that he has been advocating for many years. This will be a great help to police forces.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I do not ask for an answer immediately, but can consideration be given to the possibility of students in their off periods helping the police by performing traffic warden duty? This is a double edged weapon, because it would be wonderful if students not at college or university were invited to help the police by performing such duties.

Mr. Sharples: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. My only caveat is that if we are to bring in, as we did with the traffic wardens, auxiliary forces of this kind they must be properly constituted, because unless they are they will not have the necessary powers provided by Parliament to enable them to carry out their duties efficiently. I would not support the concept of a kind of amateur patrol with insufficient powers, a kind of A.A. or R.A.C. patrol, trying to perform such duties.
Besides the question of the proper use of the forces we have, it is also a question of improving the management generally and of ensuring that the forces themselves, not only the auxiliaries, the traffic wardens and civilians brought in to assist the police, are deployed to the best advantage. The forces and the police authorities, with whom the Government are in a 50–50 partnership, are showing a welcome readiness to adopt modern techniques of management.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet reminded us that the police computer is already under construction. We learned a great deal from the experience of the National Crime Information Centre in Washington, which I was fortunate enough to see in operation. The computer will deal with many of the particular points which my hon. Friend raised about identification of property, criminal records, fingerprinting, and so on.
The main part of the debate has been about the terms of service of the police officer. Here we come straightaway to the whole question of police pay. I recognise, as does the House, the importance of pay both in attracting the young man of high quality into the service and in retaining the experienced man which is, as I have said, of at least equal importance.
The comparisons which the policeman makes between his pay and that of those


in other occupations have been referred to. The last attempt to tackle the task of relating police pay to that in other occupations was made in 1960 by the Royal Commission on the Police, which was set up during the Conservative Administration when the present Lord Butler was Home Secretary. Its Chairman was Sir Henry Willink. Many of the important advances made by the police in the last decade had their origin in the work of that Royal Commission. The Commission's recommendations on police pay were based on comparison with pay in certain other occupations and took into account the special circumstances of the police service, including the difficult hours they have to work.
The House may welcome a summary of the system by which police pay is determined. The Police Council for Great Britain was established under Section 45 of the Police Act, 1964, to consider questions of pay, allowances, leave, hours of duty, pensions, and conditions of service in general. It operates on Whitley principles with an official side representing the police authorities and the Secretaries of State and a staff side representing the police federations and the other associations of England and Wales and Scotland.
This, debate allows me to remind the House that next week the Council will be reconstituted as the Police Council for the United Kingdom to include also representatives of the new police authority for Northern Ireland and of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. This is in line with the recommendations of the Hunt Committee and the provisions of the Police Act, 1969, with the aim of bringing the Royal Ulster Constabulary more closely into the family circle of the British police service.
Agreements concluded in the Police Council negotiations are submitted for the approval of the Secretaries of State, who to that extent have the last word. But it has been the established practice of successive Governments to regard the Council as a self-contained negotiating body to be left to work out its own salvation with as little intervention as possible.
The House will realise that national economic policies and national finance, in the form of the 50 per cent. grant in

aid of police expenditure, are involved. But our police forces are local forces, each police authority having a statutory duty to maintain an adequate and efficient force within its area, and the ratepayers of the area meeting half the bill. There must, therefore, be some compromise between the claims of both central and local government, on the one hand, and of the members of the police service on the other, and both sides of the Police Council have shown themselves in the past to understand the need for this delicate balancing of interests.
On the recommendation of the Royal Commission, the Police Council has reviewed police pay at regular two-yearly intervals, using an agreed formula based on the index of wages to ensure that police pay has kept pace with the movement of wages elsewhere. One of the problems has been the much more rapid inflation which has taken place during the last 12 months or so, so that the two-year review left the police at an increasing disadvantage. The Council demonstrated its flexibility in dealing with problems of this kind by recommending early this year an interim increase of 8· per cent.—this was referred to by my hon. Friend—and I am glad to say that it was approved by the Government of the day.
Negotiations in the normal biennial review due this year will, I understand, begin next week, with any resulting award due to take effect from 1st September. The House will appreciate that, as the amount of any award is a matter for negotiation between the two sides of the Council and subsequent approval of any agreement reached is, in England and Wales, a matter for my right hon. Friend, it would be improper for me to make any comment on the merits of any claims which have been made, and I am sure that the House would not expect me to do so.
My hon. Friend referred also to the possibility of attracting more graduates and, in particular, sixth formers into the police. I draw his attention and the attention of those in that category who might be considering taking up a career in the police that the Bramshill scholarship scheme provides for officers to take their promotion examinations after two years' service and, if they pass selection


boards, to go on to Bramshill and then, if they are good enough at Bramshill, to go on to a university. I take this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to that scheme, which, I hope, will receive much wider publicity outside, for it is a way of attracting not so much the graduate but the sixth former, the grammar school boy—that kind of person—into the police force, where he is badly needed and has a great contribu—tion to make.
In conclusion, I draw the attention of the House to one passage in the Annual Report by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary. He said that, although there had been grumbles about conditions of service, as there are in any healthy service, it would be wrong to suggest that these grumbles had materially affected police morale. The Chief Inspector pointed out that some doubts and uncertainties, most of which have been referred to in the debate, had not, in his opinion, led to any general fall in police morale. On the contrary, it was his opinion and that of his colleagues that, judging by the competence of the police service and the devotion of its members to their duty, morale remained high. This Government are determined that morale shall remain high.
We owe an enormous debt to those who serve us in the police force. We appreciate the difficult task which they have to perform, a task which, as I said at the beginning of my speech, is made the heavier by the rising volume of crime and, all too often, by the problem of being misunderstood. It is the intention of this Government, of my right hon. Friend and those who serve in the Home Office, to give our full support to the police force in its difficult rôle.

BELMONT TRANSMITTER AND YORKSHIRE TELEVISION (AMALGAMATION)

3.10 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House on the problem of the Belmont television transmitter, Lincolnshire. This is something of a unique occasion for me, because I am voicing the united opinion of all Members from the Humberside area, Lincolnshire and North-West Norfolk. They belong to both parties and all complexions within the parties. The task rests rather heavily on my shoulders. As someone who is generally partisan, I find it somewhat strange to be placed in this position, but I am grateful for the opportunity.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications has received the apologies of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and of his own right hon. and hon. Friends who cannot be here. He is aware from the letters which they have written to him and to the Chairman of the Independent Television Authority of the grave concern in the area about the Authority's decision, in the awarding of its contracts for 1973–74, to give the Belmont transmitter to the Yorkshire Television Company.
I should say at once that I am voicing not only the opinions of Members from the area but also of many representative organisations there. The Corporation of the City of Kingston upon Hull is very concerned about the decision, and the Hull Chamber of Commerce and Shipping has also written to the Authority on the matter. If we had had more time to discuss it, and if the decision had not come so much like a bolt from the blue, there would have been representations from many more organisations, which even now are writing and preparing evidence, and which are very distressed about the decision.
That decision is that, because of the new developments in colour television, the U.H.F. transmitter at Belmont shall go to Yorkshire. The transmitter has been used by Anglia in the past. The result of the decision, in viewing terms, is roughly that Yorkshire will add 5 per


cent. to its viewing population but that Anglia will lose 25 per cent. That is a considerable blow to a company with a high place in the affections of Members in the area.
Those Members do not regard the debate as a way to attack Yorkshire Television or to boost Anglia. I want to maintain both so as to have choice for my constituents. But we are not comparing like with like. In the Yorkshire Television Company we have a first-rate company with a national and growing international reputation for the quality of its network productions. In Anglia we have a much smaller company. True, it has its network programmes, but it is more renowned in the areas it covers for the attention it pays to local interests and matters of local concern. Therefore, in advancing my plea to the right hon. Gentleman to approach the Chairman of the Independent Television Authority to ask him that it should reconsider its decision, I am not knocking one company as compared with another but trying to maintain choice for my constituents and to maintain what was one of the aims and objects of the establishment of regional television companies—a close and proper regional balance.
I wish to deal with the arguments advanced by the Independent Television Authority for its decision. I will deal, first, with the technical argument and then with the general social problems connected with that particular decision.
I understand that the decision of the Independent Television Authority is that only one area of choice shall be given, that only one mast at Belmont is available, and that, if it is used, there will be no choice; there will be only Yorkshire or Anglia. That is the first point I wish to challenge.
On the basis of those U.H.F. stations already operating, this does not seem to be the case. If Yorkshire is aiming mainly at the Yorkshire-Humberside region, I submit that Yorkshire Television could still cover these areas from Emley Moor. We have only a year to wait until the erection of its mast, after that great mast was regrettably destroyed in the bad weather, in order to have a sound conclusion to this argument one way or the other.
It is argued that the U.H.F. signal from Emley Moor will not cover that area. But when we see what has happened in other areas we find, for example, that from the Crystal Palace station, Saffron Walden in Essex gets a first-class colour signal, that being well outside the predicted area of coverage for London U.H.F. We find that Swaffham in Norfolk, outside the Midlands U.H.F. area, gets a first-class colour signal from Waltham in the Midlands. We find that Wells on the Norfolk coast, well outside the predicted Belmont U.H.F. area, gets a first-class colour signal on B.B.C.2 from Belmont.
The basis of my argument is that engineers have looked at the contours, drawn their lines, taken up their slide rules, and made a decision that this is what will happen. But I argue, from the basis of the experience that we already have, that they have underestimated what their transmitters will achieve.
I submit that the Emley Moor transmitter, by the end of next year, could reach into the Humberside area and would release Belmont, if it is mainly Humberside for which Yorkshire is looking, for Anglia, and my constituents would still have the choice of the two stations. It is not unreasonable to suggest that we wait a year, before contracts come into operation for three or four years, to see what is the result of Emley Moor. Then, when we have the decision, when we know the situation rather than the predictions, it is still not too late for the I.T.A. to go ahead with its idea of Belmont going to Yorkshire if it still feels that it is necessary. I shall submit arguments which suggest that, should the Emley Moor transmitter fail, it is not necessary and proper that Yorkshire should go in that way.
Throughout past years there has been a lot of discussion between Yorkshire and Tyne-Tees and between Yorkshire and Anglia. The Bilsdale transmitter was originally to go to Yorkshire. Now it is to go to Tyne-Tees. There are justifiable suspicions that this decision was made to bolster Tyne-Tees from financial difficulties into which it had got. This being so, it weakened Yorkshire. Yorkshire lost Bilsdale, so Yorkshire gets Belmont. Yorkshire has experienced a considerable number of difficulties, not


least of which was the effect on the company of the loss of its mast in the Pennines in the bad weather to which I have already referred.
The overall effect was that Tyne-Tees got Bilsdale, Yorkshire got Belmont and Anglia got Suffolk. This was unfortunate because when the contracts were being issued the main reason why many decisions were reached in awarding them turned on the question of the quality and excellence of the programmes that were being put out. On every score, despite its size and the sparsity of the population it covered, Anglia came out tops on each occasion. There was no suggestion that Anglia should disappear. It was a good company, a good station, producing good programmes and an organisation with a keen interest in regional problems.
It would appear now, from the new decisions which are being made, that it is the excellent station which is being penalised to bolster up two other stations which, for a variety of reasons—I am not blaming the companies—were not, to the extent anticipated, achieving all the hopes for them in terms of their own capital, investment policies and so on, but which have also not reached a degree of excellence in their programmes, certainly on the local level for Yorkshire and Humberside, which we hoped would be achieved. This being so, we think that Anglia is being penalised.
It is as though Yorkshire had had a contest with Tyne-Tees and Anglia and, having not been able to win the day with either, had taken away Belmont which was the dowry for Anglia and had got away with something important for the present and for the future well being of the Anglia Company.
Apart from the technical arguments and the difficulties that have been mentioned by I.T.A., the main argument which they advance is—and I quote from a circular which Lord Aylstone sent to me when I first questioned the Minister about this:
Though technical factors sometimes prevent it, it has from the beginning been the policy of the Authority to try to create television areas that correspond with regional sentiments and interests and with the economic planning regions.
With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I do not believe that that is true.

The new Yorkshire region will be covering three, if not four, of the economic planning council regions. That will not, therefore, create the interest we want.
Next, it is a decision which is being made by the I.T.A. and which is preempting any decisions that might be taken by this House as a result of any recommendations which may be made by the Royal Commission on the Constitution, the Crowther Commission, in respect of what will be the regions and the regional interests of the country. We shall have established a network as a result of the decision of the I.T.A. which may or may not—in my view, in this case it will not—meet any of the recommendations of the Crowther Commission.
Further, this idea of regions as put forward by the Authority does not take into consideration the cultural, economic and industrial differences that exist between areas at present covered by Anglia and the Belmont transmitter, and by Yorkshire Television.
Yorkshire Television at present covers the whole of the industrial West Riding, the heavy industrialised South Yorkshire area. Here we find the old heavy traditional industries like the South Yorkshire coal field, iron and steel and the Pennine industries of the textiles. The Company does a good job for this area. However, Anglia has succeeded in uniting the interests of vast agricultural areas in those areas where there are ports which tend to look towards the East. For Hull, the east is red. But the interests are different, so that there is more in common between Grimsby and Lowestoft than there is between Grimsby and Sheffield, and more in common even between Hull and Grimsby, which is always a difficult thing to say, than there is between Hull and Leeds.
The great thing about Anglia Television is that it has been able to do a great deal in merging the interests of Humberside and making it look to itself as a single unit. It has done a great deal to give a sense of importance to the many scattered communities in this vastly populated part of England, to give them a sense of indentity, of belonging and of regional identification which has been very important for them and for the country. This is something which the Yorkshire Television Company, with the


best will in the world—and I do not doubt its willingness—could not achieve. All the emphasis in the company would be upon the national networking programme with a concentration on Leeds, Huddersfield, Bradford and Sheffield and not on the more scattered parts of its area.
The argument that investment must be made now is suspect. In many ways there is already investment in masts. But the organisation could afford to wait the year which I have suggested to see what happens. If we are to have noncompetitive contracts in 1973–74, which we know we are, and in 1976 a reexamination by a small committee of three rather than by Lord Annan of the future of the various broadcasting media, we shall allow the Independent Television Authority to lay down strict lines which it will be very hard and difficult to unscramble in 1976. The small committee of three wise men which the Minister is considering appointing, in place of the body which was to be headed by Lord Annan, will have its decision pre-empted which could have a bad effect on the area.
There is a strong feeling that the decision of the Independent Television Authority was taken in a high-handed and arrogant manner and that the Authority had made no attempt to evaluate the consumer interest or to discover from representative organisations like trade councils, town corporations, chambers of commerce and similar organisations what they thought about the way in which the television contracts should be apportioned. This is extremely bad. Perhaps because of the lack of experience and because it has statutory power the Authority thought that it had to reach a decision. But even if an organisation has statutory power it should take people into consultation. We would not have had the outcry which we have had from hon. Members about this decision if there had been consultation along the lines to which I have referred.
I come to the idea which a group of hon. Members, led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), put to the Minister when he kindly agreed to see us earlier this week.
It is important that we should have an independent assessment. It should be done under the auspices of the Independent Television Authority, with terms of

reference agreed by the two companies concerned. We should have a proper sounding of the attitude of all the people in the area, not one based on Hull or Ely, but taking in the whole of the area, if the technical argument is as sound as is alleged, so that the people feel that they are involved. They should have a say in what is happening.
I should like to summarise my case by saying that my constituents could still have a choice—we could have both stations—and I still think that this could be proved one way or the other by the end of next year. If that is true, the argument of Belmont for Yorkshire goes. If it is not so, while we are waiting to discover that, let us take a proper sounding of opinion in the area, so that when the Independent Television Authority announces its decision, it is made with at least the knowledge, and let us hope the consent, of all the people represented here. This is an important issue for all of us and I hope that when he has heard the rest of the debate, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to impress upon the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone that this is a decision which he might positively reconsider.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Without casting any reflection on the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), may I point out for the convenience of the House that this debate must finish at four o'clock.

3.31 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: The whole House is grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for having raised this subject, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend is present to reply to the debate. I propose to concentrate my remarks on my constituency as other hon. Members wish to speak.
At present, the service from Belmont goes right down into the northern half of my constituency to a point around the town of March in the middle of the constituency, running out in a slightly southwest direction towards Peterborough and passing Peterborough, which is outside my constituency. It then takes in my other political neighbour, my hon. Friend


the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler).
I have been assured by Anglia Television that the Yorkshire Television transmissions from Belmont through these new changes proposed by I.T.A. would penetrate as far as the Wash and into West Norfolk, thereby supplying material from Leeds into an area in which Anglia has been operating for the past dozen years.
I warmly endorse all that the hon. Member said about Anglia Television, which has rendered to East Anglia services in certain categories, documentaries in particular, which have made Anglia of national importance. Its films of naturalistic life, particularly those directed by Mr. Aubrey Buxton, have made its programme well known throughout the network. Anglia has a high reputation in my constituency. I want to make sure that switching Belmont from Yorkshire to provide services from Yorkshire will not result in any deterioration in the programmes which Anglia is able to provide to my constituents. That is my major concern.
What I find most disturbing is that although the I.T.A. fully recognises that it is under an obligation until 1974 to allow Anglia to go on using Belmont, according to Anglia itself it is being put under considerable pressure to forgo that right. I think it is an abomination that pressure of this kind should be applied before a contract is due to expire.
What I want from my right hon. Friend today is the assurance that he will at least consult the I.T.A. to ensure that Anglia's rights are fully maintained and that no unfair pressure is put upon Anglia to abandon Belmont in advance of the date at which the contract would normally expire, and to ensure that, whatever happens, the technical aspects of this are fully examined from the point of view of Anglia Television, and that they are fully considered, bearing in mind that this is not purely a selfish exercise but a matter of our constituents getting the service they deserve.

3.35 p.m.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: I join my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) in thanking the hon. Member for Kingston upon

Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for bringing forward this important subject. Indeed, I should also like to add my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) who has taken a great interest in this matter. I know that he is sorry not to be here today. Also I would thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill), who himself has been attempting to badger Lord Aylestone.
It must be most unusual that almost all hon. Members representing the country from Hull right down to Ely should be so totally together on one subject and so totally convinced of their case. I hope that is one message which will get through to my right hon. Friend, that this is a combined effort, a combined effort for 1 million people.

Mr. Richard Body: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is not one Member of Parliament who does not share his view? Is he aware of that?

Mr. Archer: I was not aware of it. I am absolutely delighted to hear it—that there is not even one Member who is not with us. I hope it will get clearly through to my right hon. Friend when he discusses this with the I.T.A.
I was delighted that the opening speech in this debate should have come from an hon. Member from Yorkshire, because if there was to have been any division it would have been that we might have felt that Yorkshire people were not the people to join with Lincolnshire people, because there has been ill-feeling, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North knows, on both sides of the Humber for many years on many other subjects; but on this subject we have been totally together. It is most unusual to find Yorkshire men feeling themselves not so much a part of Yorkshire as claiming to be part of us in Lincolnshire—

Mr. McNamara: Not quite.

Mr. Archer: —and only too delighted to help.
Some people are stuck with power stations, others with mines, some with factories. I am stuck with a 400 ft. television mast. Therefore it is a particular pleasure to me, as this is placed firmly in the middle of my constituency, to take part in this debate today.
I would add three points to the speech made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. I am particularly worried about the announcement of the time—1974. I see no reason for Anglia Television doing anything but having to run down its service till that date. I think it most important that we get this dealt with quickly. Why should it keep large units in my area in Louth, why should it keep units in the area of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely, when it knows that the truth is that in time it will not need those units or those people as their work will be covered by Yorkshire? It has caused distress that the date has been announced just like that and we have had the privilege of finding out about it first by only 24 hours before anybody else, and no sooner.
As to the comments which the hon. Member made about a survey, I hope my right hon. Friend will find it possible to arrange, or allow us to arrange, an independent opinion poll. I realise that opinion polls cannot always be totally reliable, but I feel that an opinion poll should be held, and the vital thing is that it should be held in the area stretching from the Isle of Ely right the way through to Hull.
We have heard that there has been an opinion poll. This was conducted in Hull and on Humberside, along the banks of the Port of Immingham which is in my constituency, and is largely populated by Yorkshire people living on one side or the other of the Humber. That does not represent a survey of whether or not my constituency wants a television service. That survey covered 120,000 people whereas it should have covered 1 million people. It came out in favour of Yorkshire Television and appeared to be as wrong as the opinion polls were before the General Election. If a survey were to be held in my constituency and in the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Isle of Ely, 90 per cent., if not more, would be shown to prefer Anglia television if they had only one choice.
We in Lincolnshire are losing our identity. We are losing our railway; our roads are breaking up and not being replaced; our schools are going and our

social services are second only to the bad parts of Scotland and Wales. We are a little tired of being on the scrap heap. This will be yet another example of Lincolnshire people having to take what they are given. Lincolnshire people, who have no affinity with Yorkshire people, will have to watch television programmes which are of no interest to them.
I implore the Minister to do everything in his power to influence the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, to tell him that we are all combined as one force on this and that if he expects to go to his meetings with any section of the public on his side he will be greatly disappointed.

3.42 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Fell: I wish to join my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) in thanking the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for raising this subject today. My only reason for intervening is that I think the more hon. Members who are able to be here today and to speak on this issue the better, and the more possibility there is—and I do not rate it higher than that—that Lord Aylestone will listen to what has been said and take note of it.
I wish to speak only about finance. From the figures that have been given, it appears that Yorkshire will gain a small amount on finance and Anglia will lose an enormous amount. Although I have nothing against Yorkshire Television, never having watched it, it is accepted that if there is one television company whose programmes are ahead of those of all the other television companies in the United Kingdom that company is Anglia. Some of its programmes have made a mark throughout the length and breadth of the nation.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: The important thing is that Anglia is far ahead of any other local stations. On national issues it has rivals but on local issues it is unrivalled.

Mr. Fell: Certainly, but this does not apply only to local issues. Such programmes as "Survival" have affected everybody. On local issues and on political programmes Anglia is far ahead


of any other small television station, and of the big ones, too.
I do not know what powers my right hon. Friend has, but I am certain that he has powers of persuasion, if not of direction. I hope he will use them to try to prevent this spirit of the age, in terms of the take-over bid by Yorkshire Television of the smaller station of Anglia. I hope that he will use his influence to hold this up until the situation can be looked at in more detail than has been done so far.

3.45 p.m.

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher Chataway): I know that the House will want to join me in thanking the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for raising this matter, for the manner in which he has done so, and the persuasive argument that he has put before the House.
There have been two features to the debate. The first is the remarkable degree of unanimity that appears to exist among hon. Members representing this area. I have had the benefit of the advice of many hon. Members who have written to me but who cannot be here today, and also of discussions with the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) and a number of his colleagues. It is clear that there is deep feeling throughout the area on this matter.
The second remarkable feature of this short debate is the demonstration of esteem that it has shown for a regional television company. There is much criticism of broadcasting authorities these days, and of individual television companies, and I would not wish lightly to dismiss any of that criticism, but it is worth remembering that a number of these companies have built up a substantial loyalty in the areas that they serve. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North introduced the debate in a non-partisan spirit, and I have no wish to say anything that would depart from that spirit, but perhaps I can say that I look forward to the day when there will be local commercial radio stations as well which will arouse the same degree of loyalty and affection in all parts of the House.

Mr. McNamara: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we already have, in embryo, our own local B.B.C. Humberside Radio Station, and we are just waiting for him to say "Yes", to go ahead, so that we can create the same kind of loyalty for that local radio station.

Mr. Chataway: I shall bear in mind the point made by the hon. Member. I am glad to know that he is prepared to accept the merits of broadcasting stations irrespective of whether they are public or private.
Many hon. Members asked me to take up a position in this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) and others have asked me to try to persuade the Chairman of the I.T.A. I have also been asked what my powers are in this matter. I am bound to make it clear that this decision is wholly and solely one for the Authority. It is important that the Authority's sole powers in this matter should be understood. It is the Authority's duty, under the Television Act, 1964, to provide television services through the agency of programme companies acting under contract to it. The terms and conditions of the contracts, including a prescription of the station or stations radiating programmes provided by the company to which the contract refers are for the Authority to determine, subject to the various requirements of the Act.
The contracts are not the business of the Minister, and the Minister does not intervene. It is not only a question of the Government's having set up the Authority and allowing the Authority to get on with the job; it is good management practice. It is bad for the Government to appoint somebody else to carry out a certain function and then to interfere with day-to-day management. One of my predecessors—the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short)—when Postmaster-General, said. "You back them or sack them. You do not muck them about." I think that that is a statement of impeccable constitutional propriety. But it is not only that. In this case it is important that no Minister or politician should have a direct influence over the way that contracts are distributed. Despite their strong feeling on this matter,


I think that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen would, on reflection, agree that it would be an unfortunate constitutional precedent if I were to take up a position on the matter.

Mr. Fell: Though everything that my right hon. Friend has said is acceptable to everybody, at the same time this is so public a service and this seems to be so obvious an anomaly that is creeping up on us that if it is known that the Minister's ire might be occasioned by something that Lord Aylestone is going to do, this might be enough to warn him that he had better look into the matter more carefully before doing so.

Mr. Chataway: It is probably right that I should seek to contain my feelings either of delight or of anger on such issues.
It may be asked whether there is any point in having a debate if the Minister is not in a position to take action. I think that it would be recognised that the House is performing an extremely useful function in expressing its opinion on such matters. It is from debates of this kind that the I.T.A. or, for that matter, the B.B.C., can be made aware of the strong feelings of hon. Members representing areas that those organisations serve. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, and his fellow members of the I.T.A. will take most careful note of all that has been said in the debate.
Although it is no part of my purpose to defend or to criticise the Authority's intention, I think that it might be useful if I brought the main facts and considerations to the attention of the House.
As a number of hon. Members have explained, the I.T.A. service is transmitted on VHF with 405-line definition in monochrome to serve Lincolnshire, the Humberside area of Yorkshire, including Hull, and a bit of the Norfolk coast east of the Wash from the Authority's station at Belmont, which has been transmitting Anglia programmes since it was opened at the beginning of 1966.
The Humberside area lies within the primary service area of this station, but most of Yorkshire is served from the station at Emley Moor transmitting Yorkshire Television. Therefore, the Humberside area does not lie within the primary, but is covered by the secondary service area of this station. The service

areas overlap on Humberside. In the general area in which both programmes can be received, I understand that they attract roughly equal audiences, though I am told by the I.T.A. that in Hull viewers watch Yorkshire programmes notably more than those of Anglia.
The Belmont station is one of three high-power VHF stations from which the I.T.A. transmits Anglia programmes. Yorkshire Television transmits on three VHF stations: one high-power at Emley, and two low-power at Scarborough and Sheffield. The population coverage of the two companies is roughly similar; six million for Yorkshire and five and a half million for Anglia.
With the advent of the duplicate version of the I.T.A. service transmitted on UHF and with 625-line definition and colour, the pattern of transmission areas will change. UHF transmissions from Belmont will, like the VHF service, cover Lincolnshire, the Humberside area of Yorkshire, including Hull, and a bit of the Norfolk coast east of the Wash. But while most of Yorkshire is covered by the Emley Moor UHF station and its satellite stations, most of the East Riding is not. So that Humberside, including Hull, will not be reached from Emley Moor.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North suggested that it may be that the Emley Moor UHF transmission will reach further than has so far been estimated. All I can say is that it is not apparently the anticipated expectation that Emley Moor will bring Yorkshire Television on UHF to Humberside. But if it did, irrespective of the decisions that are taken now, it would be possible for the I.T.A. to reconsider. I am sure that the I.T.A. will take note of that point, because obviously it is one of importance. The difficulties which arise stem in large measure from the expectation that the UHF signal from Emley Moor will not reach Humberside
The hon. Gentlemen have given us a variety of reasons for believing that the I.T.A. decision is wrong in this matter. In reaching it, the I.T.A. has to weigh a number of different considerations. The House will probably recognise that it is not an easy decision that it has to reach. There are perhaps three sets of considerations which have to be in the mind of the Authority. There is the question of the


commercial viability of the companies. It has been suggested by one or two hon. Members that the basic reason for the decision which has been taken is a desire to ensure that two of these three companies remain viable. I understand that the I.T.A. does not argue this and does not contend that it is the commercial factors which have been uppermost in its mind. But the House will appreciate that, in general, in taking decisions about the distribution of franchises the I.T.A. has to consider the commercial factors.
Secondly, there are the technical factors, and these are difficult. There are no easy answers in this direction. The pattern of UHF transmission areas has to be fitted together very carefully.
Thirdly, there is what one might call the cultural and social identity of the area served. Unfortunately, whether grouped or single, transmission areas do not neatly coincide with areas in which there is a sense of identity of tastes and interests. It is really on the last point that there has been most criticism. It has been suggested that the survey carried out by the I.T.A. has been lacking. On that, I do not think that I can give an opinion, though when my hon. Friend the Member for Louth suggests that surveys are bound to be wrong and then calls for another survey, perhaps he is not being as consistent as he might be.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that his right hon. Friend must sit down at 4 o'clock. Interventions take up precious time.

Mr. Chataway: This clearly is an issue on which there is considerable feeling in the area. I hope that the House will appreciate the reasons which I have advanced for not taking up a position in this dispute. I am confident that the Chairman of the Authority and the I.T.A. itself, who have a difficult set of decisions to take with the bringing in of UHF, none the less will look carefully at the arguments which have been deployed this afternoon.

SINGLE WOMEN (CARE OF DEPENDANTS)

3.59 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Having left this House at a few minutes after 6 o'clock this morning, I may not display the fervour that I have for the cause about which I am speaking in this debate. By means of the debate, I hope to draw attention to the great sacrifices being made by countless women throughout the United Kingdom who care for elderly or infirm relatives. The national conscience must be made aware of the contribution which the dedication of this group of single women makes to the community, and the economic and social deprivations which they suffer as a consequence.
It is particularly appropriate at this time to call attention to their plight in the last debate before the House rises for the Summer Recess, because two weeks ago—

It being Four o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Weatherill]

Mr. Kilfedder: A worthy organisation, the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants, published a fortnight ago a report on the cost to a single woman of caring for elderly or disabled relatives. The report is merely a summary of a study carried out by the organisation amongst some of its members, and it is only a preliminary survey giving the first indications of the nature of the problems facing single women who look after dependants in their homes.
I earnestly hope that this report will reach the notice of all those who show a concern for social welfare and community well being. It is bound to strike a chord of sympathy with anybody who reads it.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has over the years displayed a deep interest in the work of this organisation, but I fear to mix my metaphors, that the financial watchdogs will keep a tight rein on


him now that he is in a position to do something for these worthy people.
I and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett) know of poignant examples of hardships endured by single women who care for elderly or disabled relatives. I know of them in my constituency, I know of many cases throughout Northern Ireland, and I know of cases here in London, cases which I came across when doing voluntary work with a citizens' advice bureau.
Unfortunately, unless one knows directly of actual cases it is difficult to appreciate the trials and tribulations which the single woman endures who cares for a dependent relative. Regrettably, most people, if they think of the situation at all, conjure up in their minds a picture of a spinster daughter sitting comfortably at her fireside with her dependant in another armchair, both basking in the warmth of the fire, basking in the enjoyment of each other's company and feasting on that sort of contentment, a contentment which other people do not enjoy. This may be true in some cases, but it is true in only a small percentage of cases,
The comparison is drawn between the single woman looking after a dependent relative at home and a woman going out to work, giving the impression that the working woman has to strive harder to earn her money.
The comparison has been drawn with the married woman. It has been pointed out that the married woman must rear a family, feed it, clothe it, and bring up a noisy family of children. Despite all the work involved in that for the married woman, the work of the single woman looking after and caring for a dependent relative is far greater.
The single woman with that responsibility faces a bleak future at this time. The reality of the single woman with dependants is harsh and sad. No working woman would, knowing the conditions that the single woman looking after a dependent must suffer, give up her weekly wage packet to work long hours for a mere pittance. Nor would a married woman exchange her situation for that of the single woman who had charge of a dependent relative.
According to the report of the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants, the majority of single women questioned have given up work to look after infirm relatives when they themselves were between 40 and 50 years of age. Not only do they surrender a reasonable income, thereby suffering a substantial fall in income, but they sacrifice the prospect of promotion and bonuses and they undergo a reduction in pension, if not loss of pension rights altogether. They resign from their job, with its daily contacts with people, annual holidays and the rest, and they have little prospect of returning to work because, by the time their dependant dies, they are often too old for work or, perhaps, are living in an area where it is impossible for them to find work suitable for their age. A great number of the women questioned by the National Council had to give up not only their own career but a great deal, or all, of their social life as well.
Financial worry presents, perhaps, the greatest problem of all. With a much reduced income, there is no chance of putting money aside for the future, and many found that they were forced to spend their small savings to keep their dependants and to meet expenses for the maintenance of the home. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that 31 per cent. of those questioned stated that their health was deteriorating through strain, anxiety and sleepless nights. As the report states, these single women with dependants are subjected to a general lowering of standard of living in all respects, and their long-term future is bleak.
These women face a tax discrimination, too. I do not wish to deal with it at length, for time is short, but, briefly, unlike widows with young children, the single woman with an elderly dependant cannot claim the benefit of the housekeeper allowance. Looking at the position as a whole, I consider that an effective case could be made out for the incorporation in the national insurance scheme of a new category of unemployed, that is, those who have voluntarily given up employment in order to look after a relative at home, a relative in need of constant care and attention who might otherwise have to go to hospital, there


to be a charge on public funds. I understand from the Ministry that the average cost of a hospital bed in a long-stay hospital is £23 a week, and in a geriatric hospital £21 3s. 6d.
The single woman who takes care of an elderly relative rather than put him or her into an old person's home or a hospital is thereby saving the social services a considerable amount of money. There is a strong case for making a payment towards these single women who give up their employment to look after the elderly or the disabled.
The unemployed are ordinarily able and willing to work and are looking for work. The single woman who has to give up her employment in order to look after an elderly or infirm relative is not looking for work, She would like to be free to do so, but she is voluntarily unemployed, yet working harder and for far longer hours than many who are in well paid employment. Those who have lost employment as a result of economic factors have expectations of finding another job. The single woman in these circumstances, however, has no such hope. She would not be able to seek outside employment until death has released her from her charge, and at that stage, as I said, she may well not be of an age which would enable her to find work. Therefore, a single woman who gives up her work should receive the same amount of money as a single woman who is unemployed—£5 a week.
I should like my hon. Friend to ask the National Insurance Advisory Committee to examine the problem and perhaps consider the suggestion I have made that the National Insurance Scheme and the National Insurance Fund might be expanded to include a suitable payment for a single woman who cares for an elderly or disabled relative at home.
I know that hon. Members on both sides have a great feeling for this dedicated group of women. It is not just a case of their escorting their relatives to the lavatory occasionally during the day. The person looking after a bedridden relative has to change the bed constantly and lift the relative and take him or her to the lavatory. She must constantly be in attendance and engage in heavy physical labour. Therefore, there is a strong case for the Minister's agree

ing to my suggestion that such people, who have a bleak future, should receive from the social services a figure—I have mentioned £5 a week—which would not even recompense them for the work involved and would not match our feelings about the sacrifices they make.

4.12 p.m.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett: I, too, pay tribute to that very unselfish band of women who devote their lives to caring for the elderly. Many men do likewise, but they are outside the scope of the debate.
All such women run the risk of ending their lives in a more bitter loneliness than any of us is ever likely to face. My hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) has spoken of the cost in hospital beds that they save. In December 1968 there were nearly 100,000 people over 65 in local authority homes. The average cost then to the nation and the ratepayer combined was £11 2s. a week. It may well be much nearer £14 today, quite apart from the vast capital sums involved.
The sample survey to which my hon. Friend referred revealed that about 200,000 women are looking after elderly dependants, or have done so during their lives. If those women were to throw down that burden the numbers in local authority homes would treble overnight.
My hon. Friend also used the word "countless", and as in so many social problems this is the crux of the matter. We do not know how much bigger the problem may be in reality. We must have an accurate picture, and we can only get it at the forthcoming census. I know that some of the questions may already have been prepared, and that printing may have begun, but it should not be beyond the wit of our civil servants to add a question to the census asking how many people are looking after elderly dependants, so that we can get a true picture of the position today.
My hon. Friend dealt very kindly and fully with the position of the woman who has given up her job to look after elderly relatives. They may well be helped by the Bill, which has happily gone through both Houses, to give pensions to the over-80s and a constant attendance allowance. But the woman who still works is also in a difficult position, because her relatives may well not


qualify for the attendance allowance and yet need much more during the day. These women, too, need help. They face a lowering standard of living throughout their lives, because so often they must take only part-time and poorly-paid work.
I believe that it is possible when we have the information to set up boards to go through individual cases, boards arranged on an area basis and composed partly of medical people and partly of lay people, with a sprinkling of social workers, to work out a proper category for these women and to give them the help that the nation so rightly owes them.

4.16 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett) for giving the House the opportunity to have this short debate, although I must say that half an hour is scarcely sufficient to do justice to a subject of such wide interest and such far-reaching implications for social provision. It is agreed on all sides that our country would be much poorer without those who are sometimes rather unfeelingly called single women. Some of the women we are discussing have already given a lifetime of devoted service, frequently in trying circumstances, such as those my hon. Friends describe. There is little doubt that individual families and society in general expect a great deal from the single woman.
With the restricted scope of the debate, it is only justice that it has to be confined to the single woman, although one has to recognise that there are others in a broadly similar position, for example, the husband or wife with a severely disabled partner, the widowed mother with a handicapped child, the man who, perhaps because he has no sister or other female relative, assumes the rôle of nurse to aged parents.
It is not as easy as it was once, I admit, to find single women to assume the responsibilties of an unpaid attendant on behalf of the family and the community—and I recognise the community implications of the rôle they play. But there always will be such women whose financial and social position has

been radically altered by the age or disability of relatives and the demands which are placed upon them, and it does not do to take their sacrifices for granted. This is another reason why I am grateful to my hon. Friends for focussing attention on this issue.
Last week's "National Dependants' Week", sponsored by the National Council for the Single Woman and Her Dependants, has provided us with a healthy reminder of what is involved. Looking over the studies produced by the National Council and listening to this short debate, I find myself thinking more of what the community can do to help than of what the State can do to help, but I assure my hon. Friends that this is not an excuse for seeking to dodge or avoid necessary public expenditure.
But the State cannot make good, for example, a number of the liabilities and hindrances which my hon. Friends mentioned, for example, the loss of social life, the loss of career or marriage prospects, a sense of loneliness, the fear that being needed all too much at present will in time give way to being needed not at all by anybody. There is a real sense in which these losses and these privations cannot be costed or quantified in money terms.

Mr. Kilfedder: Would not my hon. Friend agree that there is a substantial saving as a result of the dedicated work that these single women do—and I am referring only to those who have to give up their employment—and could not that be recognised as I have suggested?

Mr. Alison: I take the point. I will not dodge the issue of financial liability, but it is worth pointing out that there are aspects which cannot be quantified or costed in money terms. Friends and neighbours can do something. I am impressed by the fact that the National Council is clearly meeting the need simply for somebody to talk to who understands the problems. It creates the impression of a body of people who are concerned, involved and interested which is a substantial contribution in itself. I sometimes wonder whether we are not just as ready to let people be cut off from our neighbourhood and community life as we are reluctant to welcome people from institutions back into community life. Perhaps the problem is that sometimes


there is no real community life into which people can be fitted or in which they can feel they have a place. This is why the easy way out often is to take refuge in the rather impersonal State provision.
Hon. Members will be aware that the National Insurance (Old Persons' and Widows' Pensions and Attendance Allowance) Act received the Royal Assent yesterday. The attendance allowance which it introduces is to be paid to the person requiring attendance rather than to the person giving it. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, the range of people giving such attendance is very wide. There may be various members of the family of both sexes or there may in some cases be a paid attendant waiting upon such people. Secondly, we think it is important that the extreme physical dependence of these severely disabled people should be counter-balanced to some small extent by a measure of financial independence. But the allowance will, when it becomes payable, be a very real improvement for families containing the most disabled members of the community, and, not least, for families consisting of an elderly and very disabled mother or father who is being looked after by a daughter. Similarly, the pension "as-of-right" for the very old, which the Act also provides, will almost certainly help some among the families with whom we are concerned this afternoon.
Hon. Members are also well aware that, when a single woman is required at home to care for elderly or ailing relatives who cannot afford to pay for her services she is entitled to supplementary benefit in the ordinary way and on the ordinary scales, including provision for rent and the 10s. long-term addition after two years. Additional payments can be made to meet special requirements not otherwise covered, and up to £2 a week of part-time earnings can be disregarded. And, of course, the elderly relative may in turn be entitled to supplementary benefit on the basis of his or her own resources and requirements. There may be instances in which two identifiable and distinct people in the sort of household which we are discussing will be entitled in their own right to supplementary benefit, with all the additions which I have mentioned. However, I

recognise that there is beyond the demand, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North referred, a demand for a special benefit for those who look after elderly dependent relatives which is non-means-tested. If I were to pursue this point, I should be out of order because it raises a number of other issues relating, particularly, to taxation.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) as recently as Monday this week that we shall certainly want to consider carefully, in conjunction with our colleagues, the general position of single women attendants and their elderly relatives. More than this I cannot say at the moment, but this is a definite undertaking.
There is, however, one other aspect of this matter to which I should like to turn for a moment. There was common agreement between the parties that the Ministry of Social Security and the Ministry of Health should be brought together. The unified department emphasises the close link between cash and care. Cash benefits have much to recommend them as offering the beneficiary some measures of choice within the limits of the benefit level; but purchasing power perhaps more readily produces goods than it produces services. I am glad to acknowledge the progress made under the previous administration in this direction, and equally happy to give hon. Members the assurance that we are very well aware of the importance of home helps, home nursing, and the many other personal domiciliary services, and that we shall give their development every encouragement.
Coming fresh to this Department, I find one of the most encouraging and interesting developments of recent years has been the concept of sharing in caring, in which both voluntary bodies and local authorities have played a part. The contrast between care in an institution and care in a family need not be total. Both the person in need of the care and the family in which that person is can benefit from provisions which enable the responsibility to be shared.
It has long been thought natural, for example, that the responsibility for children should be shared between the


parents and the community, and that children—not least disabled children—should spend part of their day in the family and part in a community—namely, a school—with their peers. This concept, is slowly being extended to the elderly and disabled through the provision of day centres and day hospitals and voluntary clubs. In addition, help is being stretched into the home by the provision of laundry facilities to relieve the family of part of the most unpleasant aspect of caring for the infirm—an aspect to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster referred in her intervention. In this way, the family, whether it consists of two or more people, can provide a stable base offering continuity and a sense of being wanted, without proving claustrophobic, either for those giving the care or for those receiving it. Clearly there is much room for experiment in this field—

Mr. Ernie Money: One aspect which causes grave concern to certain people in this position is that when holidays are provided for the old and the infirm the answer that has on occasions come from the Department has been that the single daughter looking after those parents loses her supplementary benefit for the period that the old parents are being sent on holiday because she can find a job for that period of perhaps two or three weeks. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that it is quite impossible for somebody in that position to find a job during that time.

Mr. Alison: I am glad that my hon. Friend made that brief intervention. What he has said will be on the record. Therefore, I should like to look at it on the record to consider what can be done about it. I will certainly get in touch with my hon. Friend on that point.
I was saying that there is clearly much room for experimentation in this field. I know that in some areas there is already provision whereby a severely disabled person in need of nursing care can alternate periods in residential accommodation with periods at home. I believe that this is moving in the direction to which my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North was referring, namely, the need to focus on the real contribution which the home can make to save the heavy cost involved in hospitalisation.
The National Council for the Single Woman and Her Dependants has done much sterling work in the seven years of its existence and very many more people are now aware of, and concerned about, the problems which the Council's publicity and unremitting efforts have highlighted. There is no easy solution, but progress is being made. And for this progress the Council and other voluntary bodies can take a good deal of credit. Looking at the list of distinguished members of both parties, including members of another place, who are or have been formally connected with the National Council, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I am sure it is safe to say that the particular needs of the single women who dedicate their lives to the care of the disabled or elderly at home will not be overlooked.
I am quite certain that my hon. Friends will keep us up to the mark in this respect.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock till Tuesday, 27th October, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.